43rd PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance EVIDENCE

NUMBER 005 Thursday, November 5, 2020

Chair: The Honourable

1

Standing Committee on Finance

Thursday, November 5, 2020

● (1615) law clerk. I can appreciate that Mr. Poilievre is not happy with the [English] results of the motion. However, it was his party that drafted the The Chair (Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): I call the original motion. meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number five of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. We're welcoming a couple of new Subsequently, we have an amendment and a subamendment on recruits here to the finance committee this evening. the table related to the production of documents, on which version of documents should be disclosed, how they are compared and Thank you for coming. whatnot. I won't waste time going into detail on that. What is key to the subamendment is the appearance of the Clerk of the Privy The committee is meeting today to conduct committee business, Council. As my colleagues have noted previously, and as my oppo‐ as we have been doing for a little while. sition colleagues are fully aware, we are in possession of a letter Pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on Wednesday, from the most senior civil servant in the country. The Clerk of the September 23, 2020, the committee is meeting virtually. Today's Privy Council and secretary to cabinet is the head of our civil ser‐ meeting is taking place by video conference and the proceedings vice, the head of the Privy Council Office, which coordinates the will be televised and made available on the House of Commons functioning of the government in Canada. As secretary to cabinet, website. I don't believe it's necessary for me to repeat all the rules, they are the chief adviser to cabinet and are responsible for the ac‐ as we don't have any witnesses before us. I think committee mem‐ curate recording of meetings and decisions. Clearly, the clerk is in a bers are well aware of the rules. position to be an expert witness on any number of matters, particu‐ larly because it was the clerk who pre-emptively ordered the release When we last adjourned, it was reported that discussions would of documents, including cabinet confidences and the names of rele‐ be ongoing to achieve, hopefully, an agreeable settlement on the vant public servants, prior to this committee making its motion. motion in the name of Mr. Poilievre. I take it that no agreement has been reached as yet, although I understand considerable progress is being made. Therefore, we'll start where we left off on the suba‐ mendment to the amendment to the original motion by Mr. It's important that we focus for a moment on the matters at hand. Poilievre. As I noted, the clerk is the secretary to cabinet and is responsible for keeping information related to cabinet. As a result, he is the I have on my list to start off the engagement tonight with Mr. keeper of cabinet confidences. He can choose whether they're Fragiskatos, followed by Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Julian. waived in a particular circumstance, as he did in the matter of the Canada student service grant. He did choose to waive confidence Mr. Fragiskatos. and provide all documentation that flowed through the cabinet pa‐ Mr. (, Lib.): Thank pers system. The clerk committed to doing this before we even vot‐ you, Mr. Chair. ed on requests for these documents. It's good to see colleagues. Mr. Chair, I won't take too much of the committee's time. I just wanted to take a few moments, if I could, to recap where we are. Further to his responsibility to keep cabinet confidences, the For those back at home, after weeks of watching it could be easy to clerk did take the position that matters unrelated to the student ser‐ be confused as to why we're here. vice grant should not be disclosed. Is this an unreasonable position? I think not. Is this position by the clerk to redact unrelated cabinet We have our initial motion, which pertains to Mr. Poilievre's confidences outside the normal scope of practice? No, it is not. Is it matter of privilege in relation to redacted documents. These docu‐ outside the normal scope of practice for department officials, non- ments were received by this committee in accordance with a motion partisan public servants, to redact said documentation at point of that was passed by committee members. The documents were in the source? No. Is it outside the normal scope of practice for the public format as requested in the motion and were provided on time. The service to provide completely unredacted cabinet documents to the redactions that Mr. Poilievre seems to be taking issue with, it would parliamentary law clerk and for him, and him alone, to choose what appear, are directly related to the work done by the parliamentary should be redacted as a cabinet confidence? Absolutely, 100%. 2 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

This is exactly what Mr. Poilievre and my opposition colleagues As I've said, the Clerk of the Privy Council is the keeper of cabi‐ are calling for here. The opposition majority is calling on this com‐ net confidences and is an expert witness when it comes to their re‐ mittee to take a position regarding document requests that is very lease. He has offered to come before this committee. That letter far outside the normal practice. It's happening not just here. We see sent by him states clearly that he and his relevant deputy ministers this happening at other committees as well. We also see it with the would gladly come before the committee to explain how they went structure of the motion the Conservatives made in regard to their about reviewing the motion from the committee, compiling docu‐ opposition motion the other week, again, requesting documents ments and complying the best they could with our request. unredacted and calling on the law clerk to make those redactions for cabinet confidences. The parliamentary law clerk has never had powers to review cabinet confidences. There are legal precedents and reasons for this—very good reasons. I know this has been reported in the press as well, so across the country will be aware of this fact too. Personally I'm not For the information of colleagues, I am on point in relation to our sure why the opposition has questions about why there were redac‐ subamendment. I believe setting the proper context is important. tions for unrelated cabinet confidences. I get that they have their You will fully understand my point momentarily. political game to play so I'm willing to play ball on some level. That's why I think it's completely reasonable to have the clerk and As I have explained, the way in which the majority opposition his fellow deputies here to explain themselves. What is important has requested documents is rather unorthodox and out of the ordi‐ for us to remember is that, like us, the amazing public servants who nary. To make it even more interesting, the original motion drafted work for the swear an oath, an oath to up‐ and passed by the opposition recognized that unrelated cabinet con‐ hold the secrecy of all matters that come before them in their duties fidences would be redacted at source and then forwarded to the law and to uphold the statutes that govern privacy laws in Canada. clerk for a personal privacy check. The motion was structured and passed in that way and no one from the opposition said otherwise. Imagine our surprise when Mr. Poilievre appeared post-document release dramatically throwing As we push these public servants for the release of information, blacked out papers around at the press briefing, papers he received they are conducting a delicate balancing act between our rights as from the law clerk and conforming to the exact specifications of a parliamentarians to reasonably access government documents and motion that he proposed. their sworn responsibility to uphold the confidence of the cabinet process and protect the functioning of responsible government. I Now this brings me to the Clerk of the Privy Council. In mid- think that, up front, the clerk should be commended. He recognized August the government House leader released documents, the exact that this program, while on its merits was a good concept as far was documents that the clerk had promised and that the clerk had re‐ the program was concerned, clearly had issues on the implementa‐ quested in the motion, minus the redactions by the law clerk. This tion front. He recognized the need to be 100% up front and trans‐ was an extraordinary release of Crown secrets. As has been said in parent in regard to how the CSSG came into being, and he ensured this committee in the past, this release of documents this was unlike that the cabinet documents relating to its creation and approval any that had occurred in the past. Included in the information was were made available for parliamentarians. reference to specific public servants, which the clerk took the ex‐ treme step of leaving unredacted. This required the clerk to file a notice with the Privacy Commissioner advising him of his move. However, as committee members, we have to recognize that this I think colleagues need to let the gravity of that decision sink in. unprecedented move to make the information available had to be We now have two sets of documents, the lightly redacted informa‐ balanced with the need to protect cabinet confidences on matters tion from the government House leader, which saw the complete that were unrelated. If we accepted the request from the clerk to ap‐ release of information as it relates to the CSSG, or the Canada stu‐ pear, I think that is what he would tell this committee. I think he dent service grant, minus unrelated cabinet confidences, which in‐ has a measured and reasonable explanation for why some informa‐ cluded the names of public servants. We also have the documents tion was released and other information was not. I think the testi‐ from the law clerk, which are a bit more heavily redacted, remov‐ mony he will give will side with the fact that it is not the responsi‐ ing the names of public servants, phone numbers and emails, bility of the Clerk of the Privy Council to assist the official opposi‐ among some other items. tion with their politically motivated fishing expedition Now the opposition has taken issue with the preredactions made by the public servants in relation to unrelated cabinet confidences, which again I find strange considering that this was in the motion ● (1620) from the committee. It's the regular practice when documents are sent to the committee as well, though clearly this doesn't fit the par‐ tisan narrative of the majority opposition. Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Julian and others have concerns about these preredactions. We can debate I think it wouldn't be appropriate for him to unredact information all day about how this was to be expected because of the motion for purely political reasons, to help the opposition. It would taint that was passed. However, let's set that argument aside for a mo‐ the cabinet process. All these explanations would be better heard ment. coming from the lips of the clerk himself. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 3

I think we know what colleagues on the other side are afraid of. As we have engaged in this debate, I have thought back to what They are rather annoyed that we will not allow the tyranny of the it is preventing from happening. It is obviously preventing us from opposition majority to rule supreme here in this place. I think they dealing with Ms. Dzerowicz's motion, which is calling on us to be‐ are annoyed that a non-partisan professional public servant is will‐ gin immediately pre-budget consultations. ing to come forward and testify, and that the testimony that would be given would likely counter their narrow partisan strategy. I en‐ courage all my colleagues to vote in favour of the subamendment to ● (1625) allow the clerk to come forward and explain the position of the government in regard to the redaction. It's the right thing to do.

I ask colleagues to do the right thing: Allow the clerk to come However, that doesn't mean this debate is one that I'm willing to before us. Let's move past this matter after he testifies and get to simply surrender to the opposition, because there are a number of the work that Canadians expect of us. In particular, I am very much things at stake here. We have the Clerk of the Privy Council, who looking forward to discussing the motion from Ms. Dzerowicz re‐ has made the very important point that he wishes to come before garding pre-budget consultations. It's the whole reason this commit‐ committee to be asked questions, not only by members of Parlia‐ tee exists. Let's hear from the clerk and then let's get to the work on ment on the Liberal side but by opposition members of Parliament pre-budget planning. as well. It is an extraordinary move on his part, and we see the op‐ This is a critical point and one that is quite relevant, because, if position standing in the way of that happening. we think back, this debate around Mr. Kelly's amendment and the subamendment that has been proposed by the Liberal side really does, as we continue with it—and I think we should because the This is where I have real concerns. We have not dealt in previous subamendment is tremendously important—stand in the way of our meetings with this point that I'm about to make at this committee, looking at Ms. Dzerowicz's motion, which is completely on par but it has been suggested, especially by Mr. Poilievre, and I am dis‐ with what this committee, as I just said, needs to do: commence appointed not to hear opposition colleagues challenge him on this pre-budget consultations so that we can begin to hear from Canadi‐ point.... I will tell you—and I think I speak for the entire Liberal ans about what their priorities are. side—that when Mr. Poilievre suggested that it would not be some‐ As we face a second wave, COVID-19 continues to impact al‐ thing he would be open to, that he would not be in favour of having most every part of this country in some shape or form. In my own the clerk appear before this committee, because in his view the province, , we are seeing real challenges, not only in the clerk operates at the whim of the Prime Minister and, as I think Mr. GTA and in Ottawa, but also in other parts. As we start to grapple Poilievre put it, is somehow under the thumb of the Prime Minister, with it, we need to hear from experts, particularly on the economy, is reliant, is “dependent”, on him.... These are the words he contin‐ and consider how COVID-19 is impacting the land. I can't empha‐ ues to use. Mr. Poilievre has said that the Clerk of the Privy Coun‐ size enough to my colleagues how imperative it is that we move in cil is dependent on the Prime Minister. It's just not true. this direction. If we think back to when we were elected, what was it we were sent here to do? The committee process for all MPs is central to the job of being a The most senior civil servant in the land is, by definition, neutral parliamentarian. We all know that this job is many things. It's really and objective. They must be in order to carry out their role, which two jobs, at the end of the day. You have the constituency work, is what? The clerk has the most important role in the public service, which is vital, but you also have the work that takes place on Par‐ and we need to make sure that, while there naturally will be quar‐ liament Hill. On this latter point, the work on Parliament Hill, our rels between members of Parliament on opposite party sides, we do committee work is crucial, imperative. I have had the honour of not attack the public service, which, as we have seen with the issue serving on the committee for foreign affairs, on the committee for of the day, COVID-19, were it not for the federal public service.... public safety and national security, and now for the previous two We could also talk about the public services operating at the provin‐ years, under your learned leadership, Mr. Chair, and I say this very cial and municipal levels, but I won't do that. I'll focus on the feder‐ sincerely.... I know you're a modest man, and you're shaking your al public service and what an extraordinary job they have done head there. You should not. You have led the committee in a very through COVID-19. able way, Mr. Chair. It is a tremendously important thing to sit on the finance commit‐ tee, and the work we do is varied. We have a role in the gathering By suggesting that the head of Canada's public service is some‐ of ideas that relate to COVID-19 and the economic response, the how under the rule of and entirely “dependent”, as Mr. Poilievre gathering of ideas that find their way in the form of recommenda‐ put it, on the Prime Minister, that is something that besmirches not tions for the finance minister to consider and for the Prime Minister only the reputation of this particular clerk. It besmirches the reputa‐ also, of course, to consider. That is not a small thing. It is some‐ tion of clerks previous and those who will come after Mr. Shugart. thing that I and colleagues around the table will take pride in, but It also attacks the reputation and honour of existing public servants our constituents also feel a great amount of pride when they know at all levels, whether they are public servants who have just recent‐ they have MPs representing them who sit on this committee, ar‐ ly joined Canada's civil service or whether they are experienced guably the most important committee on Parliament Hill. ones as well. 4 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

I wonder why it is that my Conservative colleagues continue to I hate to interrupt but Mr. Fragiskatos has repeatedly asserted, do this at almost every opportunity. It surprised me as well that Mr. falsely, that wild accusations or criticisms were made of the Clerk Poilievre made the point, because he speaks very highly, at least he of the Privy Council, which is not correct. Mr. Poilievre did not at‐ has in previous sessions and meetings of this committee.... In the tack Mr. Shugart in any way. He pointed out that he is an employee previous Parliament, for example, I remember him putting on of the Prime Minister— record that he held Mr. Shugart in high esteem. That was an inter‐ Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: He said he was dependent on the Prime esting point, but one that he completely contradicts when he says Minister. that Mr. Shugart is under the thumb of the current Prime Minister. It's just not the case. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, when Mr. Poilievre Mr. : In fact, he went on to assert repeatedly that he served in cabinet, Mr. Shugart was the deputy minister to Mr. was, if I can quote him from the record, a heck of a guy. I don't Poilievre and has served under a number of different governments. think he at any point attacked the integrity or the— All of which is to say, that the moment we begin to attack public The Chair: Mr. Kelly, we're into debate, unless you have a point servants is the moment when we see a tide or a shift in our democ‐ of order. racy that we should absolutely avoid. All of us are in this position If you want to make that point you're welcome to it. as members of Parliament, a position that will not be forever. We are here for sometimes a few years and sometimes a good number Mr. Pat Kelly: There are two points. One point of order was on of years. The reality is that partisanship plays a role in that process. the correction of the record. The other point of order I have would We've decided to approach our public service in that way, but pub‐ be relevance. He strayed far beyond the subamendment. lic servants who decide to work in the civil service, making a con‐ The Chair: I can take relevance. tribution along those lines, want nothing to do with politics. Once we begin attacking them, we violate a central, a cardinal, rule in a I'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos on relevance. I do think in part he was democracy, and that is that the public service must never be politi‐ refuting an argument that was made in a previous discussion by a cized. member. ● (1630) Before I give you the floor again, Mr. Fragiskatos, Madam Clerk, Public servants are not politicizing this process but by making you will have to give me a signal if Mr. Ste. Marie wants in. I usu‐ the accusations that Mr. Poilievre has put forward, and which again ally can see him on my screen even when he's in the room but I I emphasize to my amazement, the opposition has not intervened to can't see him tonight. You can give me a shout or wave your hand if correct him or to voice their view on the matter. We take away, we he happens to want in. do away with the need to ensure that our democracy, in terms of the public service, is free of politics. Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor. There's another thing, too, here. I remember Mr. Gerretsen sug‐ Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: Thank you, Mr. Chair. gesting this, although he didn't complete the thought, if I remember, It was an interesting point of order. I think you ruled it a point of when he sat at this committee a few weeks back. It was that we debate. In that vein I would like to thank Mr. Kelly for his interven‐ have to be very careful about how we decide to engage discussions tion because.... I see he's now put his thumbs up. He doesn't realize around the public service because they're not here to defend them‐ that he just gave me a new track to follow, one that is actually en‐ selves. When Mr. Poilievre makes these accusations he does so tirely relevant to the discussion at hand. without Mr. Shugart and other public servants present. That to me is offensive because public servants are not to be attacked for all Mr. Kelly says that the attack didn't happen because Mr. the reasons I've laid out. Also, it's not their position to engage in Poilievre was actually honouring Mr. Shugart. He did have some these debates. good things to say. He's also put that on the record in previous Mr. Shugart realizes that but in a very honourable way has put meetings, but when Mr. Poilievre uses the word “dependent” it im‐ forward a letter to this committee so he can be heard. If members of plies that the clerk is not “independent”. To make that kind of an the opposition at that point wish to engage combatively with him I accusation against the Clerk of the Privy Council of Canada is suppose that can happen. To launch these accusations without the probably the ultimate insult that can be launched towards the high‐ Clerk of the Privy Council present is quite extraordinary and some‐ est-ranking public servant at the federal level that this country has thing I don't think I've seen at any committee level. I wonder if it's to offer. happened before in previous committees. Perhaps it has, as that par‐ I won't belabour that point, but it's an interesting intervention on liamentary history is long. I'm going to assume, because of the the part of Mr. Kelly. He knows I have respect for him. I've been strength of our democracy, that the times it has transpired are few open about the way I've worked well with Mr. Kelly in the past. In and far between. fact, I first met him when we carried out pre-budget consultations a This point about not attacking the public servants who serve this few years ago. If I recall, he has a background in business. He is country— known in the business community. ● (1635) ● (1640) Mr. Pat Kelly ( Rocky Ridge, CPC): I have a point of Mr. (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): I have order, Mr. Chair. a point of order. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 5

I'm sure that singing the praises of Mr. Kelly is something we'd the WE Charity being selected to deliver the Canada student service all like to do, but it is not relevant to the subamendment. If Mr. grant, the CSSG. Fragiskatos has nothing else to contribute to the debate, let us pro‐ ceed to the vote. We have heard very clearly through that testimony that there was no corruption, that there was no misuse of funds and that WE was The Chair: We have four other people in the lineup at the mo‐ actually independently selected by civil servants. The reason we ment, including you, Mr Julian. rushed before the summer was that, we knew that university stu‐ Mr. Fragiskatos, Mr. Julian has a valid point, though, on rele‐ dents really wanted to be able to access as much money as possible vance. so they could fund their continued education. We went to a contri‐ bution agreement and not a sole-source contract for very deliberate Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I acknowledge your ruling there, Mr. reasons and we explained that, and we absolutely did this for stu‐ Chair. I always strive to keep it relevant. If, for a few seconds there, dents. I broke the 20-second rule that Mr. Julian has talked about in the past, I really apologize. Not only did we introduce the CSSG program, but we introduced over $9 billion in supports for students. The vast majority of that By the intervention here.... If the opposition wishes to raise money has gone out. It's been very helpful, and it's been very help‐ points of order, it's obviously within their right to do so as MPs ful for my nephew, who is now at Brock University. I'll tell you, he working on committee. I have to put on record here again that when laments that school is not fully back in session, but I know that he the accusations were launched against the clerk by Mr. Poilievre, I has taken advantage of some of the programs because he needed to. didn't hear anything on the part of the NDP. Mr. Julian did not raise I wanted to put that out there because I think it's very important. his voice. Those who replaced him at committee when Mr. Julian stepped out for a few hours in the last meeting that we had on the The 5,000-plus documents—I think there are around 5,600—do subject, and in meetings before that, nothing was put on the record not have a smoking gun. There is no smoking gun there. What the from the NDP that has, at least in its rhetoric, consistently put for‐ subamendment before us tries to get to is to say, let's bring all the ward a message that would have Canadians believe that they have parties relevant to this matter—to the redactions, to the documents real respect and admiration for public servants. Here we have Mr. and to why things were redacted—around the table. Then we can Julian working with the Conservative opposition and Mr. Poilievre, address any outstanding questions and concerns and try to do it in a which is an interesting alliance, to put it mildly and to be polite public way, in a transparent way, so that we can move on to pre- about it. I leave that there. budget consultations. This is a motion I had introduced at our very first session, after we came back from prorogation and after we lis‐ I know that others want to speak. I have more ideas on the im‐ tened to the Speech from the Throne. That was, I believe, on Octo‐ portance of never attacking public servants, and by extension never ber 8. politicizing the public service, or at least debates that would tend in that direction. I'm glad to bring those matters up later on, but I I found something in the paper that I want to share with you. know that Ms. Dzerowicz is at the edge of her seat, getting ready to This is from the Star weekend edition. There was a founda‐ put forward a speech that we're all ready and excited to hear. tion that decided.... It was a group that actually had been very in‐ volved with the WE Charity for over 10 years. They took out a full- With that said, Mr. Chair, I will turn it over to my colleague from page ad and it's exactly relevant to what we're talking about. It says: Davenport. The Real #WEscandal is the Loss of #WEcharity The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos. My name is Andy Stillman. I believe in smart, impactful philanthropy. That's why for nearly a decade, my family foundation supported WE Charity. But over That's quite an introduction, Ms. Dzerowicz. The floor is yours. the past months I've been confused, reading negative press about WE and its founders. If you're like me, you want to cut through the politics and get to the I can see it in Mr. Julian's eyes. He's looking for relevance al‐ truth. ready. So that's exactly what I did. I hired top-rated, non-partisan investigators and Ms. (Davenport, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. forensic accountants, including Matt Torigian, former Deputy Solicitor General for the province of Ontario, and forensic accountant Dr. Al Rosen, who has ap‐ First of all, I want to say thank you to my colleague for giving peared before the Supreme Court of Canada. me such an introduction. I'm afraid I'm probably going to disap‐ The review included over 5,000 pages released by the federal government, and point. I am not ready with any oratorical speeches at the moment, nearly 400 documents released by WE Charity, as well as a full evaluation of WE Charity's finances and that of the social enterprise ME to WE that funds the although I probably have a few interesting things to say before I go charity. into some prepared remarks. To be honest, a lot of it is expanding The findings convinced me. So much so that I wanted to pay for these full-page on where Mr. Fragiskatos has been. It's been exactly along the lines ads to ensure that Canadians have the truth. I've been thinking about, so I am expanding on some of his points. Here Are the Top Five Things the Experts Found: Here is where I am going to start off. I am going to say that we 1. The public service considered multiple other charities and groups, and the on the government side do not believe—and I say this wholeheart‐ public service determined that We Charity was the best partner to administer the edly—that we're hiding anything. I always like reminding everyone Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG) to help students. who is listening, and maybe some of the new colleagues who have ● (1645) joined us today at this committee meeting, that we actually had al‐ 2. The Prime Minister's Office did not predetermine that WE Charity would be most two months of testimony over the summer, just to look into selected to administer the Canada Student Service Grant. 6 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

3. WE Charity would have made no profit from the CSSG, but only been reim‐ My colleagues and I would be pleased to make ourselves available to ap‐ bursed for eligible expenses to administer the program. WE Charity was clearly pear before the committee to speak to the redactions that were made if it would be use‐ motivated by helping students. ful to do so. 4. ME to WE Social Enterprise has created jobs to help lift people overseas from poverty and given 100% of its profits to WE Charity or reinvested funds for so‐ I know that we've been discussing the documents requested by cial purposes. this committee for some time now, and I think it is fair to say there 5. Marc and Craig are volunteers who never profited from WE Charity. In con‐ is some disagreement among parties in relation to the redactions of trast, the Kielburger family are the among the most generous financial support‐ non-relevant cabinet confidences by the public service. As well, ers of WE Charity. there seems to be clear-cut confusion as to who redacted which set Simply put, there was no funny business. The real #WEscandal is politics caus‐ of documents that are floating out there. ing the loss of an incredible Canadian charity which has helped millions of young people for over 25 years. ● (1650) See the facts for yourself at FriendsofWE.org and learn how you can help right this wrong. If you look at the subamendment we've put on the table, we've I remain a believer in WE Charity and I will continue to support them. Today's actually proposed to bring forward to the committee both sets of world needs more youth volunteerism, not less. We need to take a step back, documents. The set of documents that is coming forward that was think critically and check our assumptions. redacted by our independent civil servants, that's package number It is my hope that these reports will renew your confidence in an important orga‐ one. Package number two is the package that came back from the nization, like it has mine. If you want to make your voice heard, I hope you'll share your WE story of impact with FriendsofWE.org law clerk, which was further redacted. That way we can see the dif‐ ferences. I just want to say that because, again, it validates.... The reason we're actually talking about a subamendment to an amendment of In any case, there seemed to be some confusion in regard to who an original motion is that the original motion had an implication redacted which set of documents. We have the very comprehensive that there were redactions done by our independent civil servants set of documents released by the government House leader, which that were hiding things that were some kind of smoking gun, that had some light redactions in relation to personal privacy and unre‐ were covering up some kind of big scandal or some sort of big cov‐ lated cabinet confidences. We then have redactions completed by er-up. That is indeed not the case. the law clerk, which were intensive. Again, because of the two months of testimony we've had.... I On the first set of documents, the redactions and instructions found it so amazing that this foundation decided it was going to came from our law clerk. Mr. Fragiskatos talked a bit about how it hire its own independent investigators and forensic accountants to was the clerk who gave very clear instructions to all departments as actually see if there was any funny business, and when it found the to what information needed to be released. I want to add to the dis‐ results, decided to go out and put out these ads, and it was really cussion that cabinet confidence is very clearly defined. There are important to do so. I thought I'd start with that, because it is really six short points that are defined in terms of confidences of the important for us to put it on the table. Queen's Privy Council for Canada. It's in a subsection of our Priva‐ cy Act, which states: Getting back to the subamendment, again, the reason we want the subamendment to pass is that it was our attempt on the Liberal 70(1) This Act does not apply to confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for side to try to deal with any concerns that there was some sort of Canada, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any infor‐ document that hid some big secret or cover-up, so that we could mation contained in move as fast as we could to pre-budget consultations. Now, because (a) memoranda the purpose of which is to present proposals or recommendations we've had a number of discussions, it feels like where we are at is to Council; that there is agreement that we'll eliminate cabinet confidence and (b) discussion papers the purpose of which is to present background explana‐ we'll eliminate anything of national security. However, I think tions, analyses of problems or policy options to Council for consideration by where we are sitting is that there are some redactions within the Council in making decisions; original set of documents that went to the law clerk that had zero (c) agenda of Council or records recording deliberations or decisions of Council; relevance to WE and that never needed to be submitted, but be‐ (d) records used for or reflecting communications or discussions between minis‐ cause they were just part of the documents they ended up being ters of the Crown on matters relating to the making of government decisions or submitted and were automatically redacted. What is important to the formulation of government policy; state is that if those sections were not included as part of the sub‐ (e) records the purpose of which is to brief ministers of the Crown in relation to mission, no one would have ever complained, because it was never matters that are before, or are proposed to be brought before, Council or that are part of the original intention that they be included. the subject of communications or discussions referred to in paragraph (d); and Anyway, I don't know if any of that is clear but we have a few (f) draft legislation. hours to actually make it clearer. It's important to point that out for anyone who is listening. To be Where I am going to take us is actually what my colleague, Mr. honest, I had to learn this as well. I learned it as part of all of these Fragiskatos, talked about when he indicated that Mr. Shugart, our discussions. It's very clear, when formal documents are actually re‐ Clerk of the Privy Council, had submitted a very clear letter to the quested, that there are very clear guidelines about how to define Clerk of the Committee indicating the following: cabinet confidences, how to define items of national security and I am writing further to recent discussions at the Standing Committee on how to define things that are irrelevant. I wanted to make sure that I Finance. put that out there. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 7

As a result of the proper instructions that came from the Clerk of in government for a while—Canadians and all other parties assume the Privy Council, several departments undertook to release an un‐ that our public service will be independent and act independently, precedented level of information, including cabinet confidences re‐ and that they will do that irrespective of whichever party is in gov‐ lating to the CSSG, where 5,000 pages were disclosed, including ernment. I absolutely believe that this is true right now. documents that would never had seen the light of day.... It says here in my notes that they would “never have seen the light of day under If Mr. Poilievre or other members believe that, for some reason, the previous Harper government”. our public service is not independent anymore, this is a much big‐ ger issue that we need to address. It is not the focus and should not That comment just highlights the point that our government is be the focus right now, but I'm pointing out something that is very trying its best to be as transparent and as open as possible. The re‐ troubling in terms of that line of questioning or that type of indirect lease of an unprecedented number of documents is part of that. I sort of accusation, which it is fairly direct. I truly believe that our would also point out, and it's important to note, our Prime Minister Clerk of the Privy Council, who had—and this has been pointed did not prorogue Parliament until all of these documents were for‐ out—been a deputy minister for Mr. Poilievre when he was a cabi‐ merly released to the public. net minister in previous governments.... At that point Mr. Shugart That's a very important note to reiterate, because to me that is an‐ acted independently, and I absolutely believe that the Clerk of the other clear action our Prime Minister took that showed there was no Privy Council, who is now Mr. Shugart, is acting independently as desire on our part to not release the full documents, as was agreed well. to at our July 7 finance meeting. I was going to say that it's a slippery slope, but I don't even think The release of these documents is significant. The opposition it's a slippery slope. I don't even think there should be any kind of a members can now take umbrage with the fact that some redactions slope that we should be going down in terms of saying our civil ser‐ were made by public servants, but it's to be expected. I explained vants are not independent and are not acting in the best interests of that there are very clear definitions about what redactions need to all Canadians. be made. I would also add that there's probably a lot of training that goes into making sure that we only redact what we need to redact, Where I am going to go from here? I think one of the things I'd and everything else is made public. like to get to is the whole thing of why. To be honest, I'd prefer if we were on pre-budget consultations right now. I'm not quite sure ● (1655) why it is that our opposition is not allowing us to hear from the To my friends in the Conservative Party, as they will know, Mr. Clerk of the Privy Council and from our law clerk. Honestly, I've Poilievre especially, typical cabinet meetings are not solely focused never heard of parliamentarians refusing to hear from these inde‐ on one topic, particularly during this ongoing pandemic. Countless pendent civil servants, and the very act of refusing to allow them to important topics are discussed at cabinet, and relevant decisions are testify here at committee is effectively politicizing our public ser‐ taken in order to ensure proper functioning and responsible govern‐ vice. ment. Reasonable redactions were made to unrelated topics, includ‐ ing these cabinet documents, so as to allow for their release. This The public service in this country is expressly non-partisan for a isn't out of the ordinary, and I want to make sure that I reiterate that. reason. It's absolutely unacceptable that the opposition is taking the position that they have. Let's put partisanship and politics aside for I'll move on here. a moment. Let's acknowledge the fact that, at the instruction of the We have in possession this letter from Mr. Shugart, who wishes Clerk of the Privy Council, the public service compiled documenta‐ to come before this committee along with the relevant deputy min‐ tion related to the Canada student service grant. isters to discuss the documents that were released by the Govern‐ ment of Canada. Because of Mr. Shugart's position and his initial In keeping with the motion of this committee, cabinet confi‐ commitment to release all documentation related to the Canada stu‐ dences were removed. That is a standard practice, and I talked a lot dent service grant, he is, in fact, uniquely positioned to answer our about that before, and I know everybody knows about it. The clerk questions. added only one caveat to the release of these documents, that per‐ sonal information was to be removed from the documents. Even Therefore, it begs the question: Why does the opposition not then, the names of political staff and public servants were left visi‐ want to hear from the clerk and the relevant deputy ministers? I'd ble. Only phone numbers and unrelated family member names were also ask, as it relates to the subamendment, why we would not want removed, as the clerk indicated in his letter to us. to bring our Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk together at the exact same time. This is what the subamendment also high‐ ● (1700) lights. The law clerk, upon receiving the documents on August 8, went I also want to mention something that Mr. Poilievre indicated in about his duty to review the documents for personal information, as the last session. I don't know if other Conservatives also mentioned indicated by the committee motion, and redacted appropriately. it, but I do recall Mr. Poilievre saying this a number of times. There Those are the blacked-out documents the opposition members are seemed to be an implication that the Clerk of the Privy Council is waving around in, as it says here, “moments of grandeur”, but I not independent, and I think this is troubling. I pointed out very think it's also the opposition waving around the same documents in quickly that, if you're in government—and the Conservatives were French and in English. 8 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

I want to get this on the record. I have the utmost respect for the and how to address maybe some of the bigger issues we have in parliamentary law clerk and the work he does. I know that the role terms of trade surpluses. of the law clerk is essential to the functioning of Parliament and to protecting its rights and privileges. Like most lawyers, he will al‐ It's really important for us to try to get past this. I've heard Mr. ways defend the rights of his clients strenuously. His legal opinions Julian say a couple of times—I know he's about to speak, so he'll will always take the most conservative view of Parliament being probably respond to this—that he has put all these ideas on the ta‐ the ultimate authority amongst the three branches of government. ble. This makes complete sense. That's his job. I'm happy to have him Quite honestly, Mr. Julian, I have not heard all your ideas on the on my side. I think he's done great work on this file under the most table. I've only heard a “no”, or there seems to be a reluctance to strenuous circumstances, particularly the pandemic. However, the actually agree to the subamendment so that we can maybe bring all Clerk of the Privy Council and public servants at large also have in‐ the actors to the table to try to get past this so that we can have a herent responsibilities. For them it's to the Crown, to protect Crown certain number of meetings and considerations for pre-budget con‐ secrets and uphold and enforce the statutes and legislation passed sultations, and put forward these very excellent ideas to our Deputy by legislators. Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to our government so This leads us to the normal tension that exists, and not just now. that they can be incorporated into the much-awaited and much- It has always existed. There will always be tension between the law needed budget 2021. clerk and the Clerk of the Privy Council as it relates to this type of ● (1705) release of documents. The law clerk will always take the most ex‐ pansive position on the rights of parliamentarians for access to doc‐ With that, thank you so much, Mr. Chair and everyone, for lend‐ uments. The Clerk of the Privy Council, and by extension the pub‐ ing your ears. lic servants, will always take the opposite position, that cabinet confidences have to be protected and upheld at all costs. Thank you. Typically, we resolve this tension through negotiation, where a ● (1710) happy medium is found. I think that is where we ideally want to go. The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Dzerowicz. I think that's the reason we proposed this subamendment. Let's bring both to the table. As I have said time and time again, we al‐ Next on my speaking order is Mr. Julian and then Ms. Koutrakis. ready proved through the testimony in the two months over the summer that there is no scandal and there is no cover-up, as Mr. I still have Mr. Fragiskatos on it. I don't know if you're on after Poilievre, I think, is very fond of theatrically stating there is. There that or if you just didn't take your “raise hand” function down. is no smoking gun in terms of any of the 5,000-plus documents. Mr. Julian, the floor is yours. Don't just take our word for it. You also have this independent Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Chair, could the clerk read the subamend‐ foundation that had been very involved with WE and became very ment please? troubled with all these allegations about WE. They independently hired Dr. Al Rosen, a former deputy solicitor general for the The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Evelyn Lukyniuk): It is that Province of Ontario and forensic accountant, who has appeared be‐ the amendment be amended by adding after the words “current ses‐ fore the Supreme Court of Canada, to also validate that, as he said, sion” the following: there is “no funny business”. That the committee requests the complete package of documents provided to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons With that, the only thing I would leave with everyone before I by relevant Deputy Ministers or the signatories of the transmittal letters, as well pass the baton to the next person who would like to speak is that at as the final package of documents that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel this point I will tell you that I am really quite worried about our of the House of Commons approved for release, that both of the document pack‐ ages be provided to the Committee no later than October 19, 2020, and that after pre-budget consultations. I wonder whether we can really give the the committee reviews the two different versions of documents, the committee proper time that is needed to the almost 800 organizations, individ‐ invite each of the relevant Deputy Ministers or the signatories of the transmittal uals and corporations who have made submissions to us. I have an letters, as well as the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of interview that I'm supposed to be doing about what happens if there Commons, to give testimony regarding the redactions applied to the documents that were requested and granted in the motion adopted on July 7, 2020, and that are no pre-budget consultations. until such a time as this testimony is complete, debate on the main motion and amendment from be suspended and that the Chair be authorized I truly believe in the work of our government. I truly believe in to schedule these witnesses, and convene a meeting to resume debate on Pierre the work of this committee. I believe we have important work Poilievre’s motion once these meetings have taken place. ahead of us to not only listen to those who are going through an un‐ Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose the following precedented pandemic but also to hear their very best ideas about amendment to the subamendment: It is that we strike everything how we can support not only them as organizations, as corpora‐ from “until”—the final sentence that suspends and destroys the tions, but also Canadians overall, how we can get our economy point of privilege—and that we add “and, following a vote on the back on track, how we can create a strong economic foundation point of privilege, that the committee proceed immediately to com‐ from which to pivot after we come out of this pandemic, how we mittee discussion on pre-budget hearings.” can also set ourselves up to be even more competitive and address some of the structural financial issues we have had in the past, how The Chair: Can you, Mr. Julian, go through that again a little we can put our capital to work to become as competitive as we can, more slowly? November 5, 2020 FINA-05 9

Mr. Peter Julian: It's the final sentence. Perhaps the clerk could [English] read it again. It starts with “until”. The Chair: Madam Clerk, I think I have to rule the amendment The Chair: It begins, “until such a time as this testimony is out of order, but I'd like clarification from you. complete”. The Clerk: It is: The Clerk: Thank you. ...until such a time as this testimony is complete, debate on the main motion and amendment from Pierre Poilievre be suspended and that the Chair be authorized I'll just draw your attention to pages 542 to 543 of House of to schedule these witnesses, and convene a meeting to resume debate on Pierre Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. At the last line it Poilievre’s motion once these meetings have taken place. says, “Since subamendments cannot be further amended, a Member Mr. Peter Julian: Again, my amendment to the subamendment wishing to change one under debate must wait until it is defeated is to strike everything from “until” to the end of the subamendment, and then propose a new subamendment”. and to replace it with “and that the committee proceed immediately following a vote on the point of privilege motion to discussion of The Chair: It is out of order, Mr. Julian. This one will have to be the pre-budget hearings.” dealt with. It's amending the subamendment, so I guess you'd have to start in a new place. The Chair: Madam Clerk, I have to ask this of you because we are into an amendment of the subamendment to the amendment of the motion. Do we need unanimous consent to do that? I believe we Mr. Julian, the floor is still yours. do. Mr. Peter Julian: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll wait for the clerk to respond. She knows the rules better than I do. We've been hearing from Liberal members all along that it's something about having the Clerk of the Privy Council before com‐ Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. mittee. That is obviously not the case. The Chair: We are waiting for the clerk to give me clarification on that point. I don't believe it's allowed, but go ahead with your Their subamendment kills the motion of privilege. The core of point of order. the problem is that for a month we've had Liberal members abso‐ Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I wonder if text can be sent. Mr. Julian lutely stonewalling and stopping the work of the finance committee did read that, but it's always easier if the text is made available to and refusing to proceed to pre-budget hearings. The reason they are members, so that we can further consider. doing that isn't because of some differences around witnesses. I The Chair: Yes. Could you read your amendment to the suba‐ don't think there is a single member of the committee who objects mendment again, Peter, while the clerk is clarifying this point? to hearing from the Clerk of the Privy Council or the law clerk on this. It's to kill the motion of privilege. This is the core of the issue. Mr. Peter Julian: From the word “until” to the end— ● (1715) The Speaker, who is elected by all members of Parliament, has The Chair: I'm a little lost. You're removing before “until” or af‐ the ability to rule on this motion of privilege. All the committee is ter after ”until?” doing is flagging what is a grave concern. The grave concern is the censorship, substantially, of 1,500 pages of documents. That is Mr. Peter Julian: Including the word “until” right to the end of what was delivered to the finance committee in response to the mo‐ the subamendment, I'm striking that and replacing it with “and the tion that I tabled on July 7, which was voted on by the entire com‐ committee move immediately following the vote on the motion of mittee. privilege to consideration of the pre-budget hearings”. Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I have a point of order, Chair. We have substantial censorship and redaction of the documents. The Chair: I'm going to need clarification from the clerk before The law clerk drew our attention to this immediately. We have a we do anything. motion of privilege that is a very valid motion, but government members refuse to have this committee rule on that and actually What is your point of order? have a vote. Why? What is in the documents that they don't want us Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I was simply going to ask if that is avail‐ to see? able in French as well. The issue is not, as the government members have tried to put The Chair: Okay. forward, whether or not the Clerk of the Privy Council comes to [Translation] committee or whether or not the law clerk comes to the committee. Mr. Peter Julian: The motion is to strike everything from the The issue is trying to kill a motion of privilege. As you know, Mr. word “until” and to add a point that asks the committee to move Chair, when a motion of privilege is submitted to the Speaker it has immediately to consideration of the pre-budget hearings, following to be in a timely manner. the vote on the motion of privilege. With the filibuster that the Liberals have undertaken for the last Mr. Ste‑Marie will say that it's not a perfect translation, but it's month we can justify not submitting it to the Speaker in a timely the best I can do. manner. For the committee to decide— 10 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

● (1720) hope they do so, rather than continuing to engage in this filibuster, Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I have a point of order, Chair. which has stopped the work of the finance committee now for over a month. Mr. Peter Julian: —that it is not going to proceed with it, that means the motion of privilege is killed— The Chair: Mr. Julian, I do have a point of order. I'll have to They have many different paths they can take to work with the take it first and then I'll let you proceed. opposition members. They have refused all so far because their in‐ tent is to kill the motion of privilege. Their intent is to withdraw the Mr. Fragiskatos. right of the Speaker to rule on this issue. I am in complete disagree‐ Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: Thank you, Chair. ment with their approach and I find disingenuous their speeches this evening. I'm listening to Mr. Julian and he is implying that improper redactions have occurred. That's quite the accusation, so I have a hard time following the argument without disagreeing very strong‐ Thanks, Mr. Chair. ly— The Chair: Mr. Fragiskatos, I don't believe that is a point of or‐ The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Julian. der. If you want to enter that into debate, you're more than welcome to, because Mr. Julian has made that point. I'll go back to Mr. Ju‐ I believe now on my list is Ms. Koutrakis first, followed by Ms. lian, because that is debate. Khalid. Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Koutrakis, the floor is yours.

The reality is that I do feel it was improperly censored. A lot of Ms. (Vimy, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. members of this committee feel the same way. It is not up to me or to any member of this committee to voice their opinion. All we can do is inform the Speaker of our consideration around this, and it is I want to thank my colleague Mr. Julian for his comments. We, up to the Speaker to judge. That's the issue here. We believe we too, have confidence in the Speaker of the House, as does he and all should be referring this matter to the Speaker. of our colleagues in the House. We also have a lot of confidence in the law clerk to make the judgment based on fact. I think both argu‐ Government members have been stonewalling now for a month, ments can be made and should be considered before we make a fi‐ destroying any possibility of having the thorough pre-budget hear‐ nal decision on how to proceed. ings that committee members would like to have engaged in. They are basically stonewalling the progress of the committee. I can remember a time not long ago, watching the proceedings of If government members feel there is a way through this, it is ex‐ this place, where members of Parliament were able to set partisan‐ actly the amendment to the subamendment that I just tabled. If gov‐ ship aside, work together and come to a consensus on how to han‐ ernment members really just want to hear from the clerk and the dle the issues of the day. It really is a shame to see the polarizing law clerk, then they should amend their own subamendment, allow politics that have taken hold in other countries throughout the world for the motion of privilege to be voted on and refer it to the Speak‐ continue to creep into our own Parliament of Canada. er. The Speaker determines—none of us—whether or not there are grounds for a violation of privilege. That's up to the Speaker, elect‐ ed by all of us. Unfortunately, this is most present in the tactics or strategy of my colleagues from opposition parties. Before Mr. Julian begins to play If government members are saying they have no confidence in defence for Mr. Poilievre and tries to call relevance on me, I'm hop‐ the Speaker, I would be very surprised. In fact, I would be stunned ing for a few moments of latitude because I will be coming to my that they would be that critical of the officer of Parliament, the point in regard to the subamendment, not the subamendment of the Speaker, who we have chosen collectively as members of Parlia‐ subamendment that Mr. Julian discussed, but the first one. Howev‐ ment. I have confidence in the Speaker. I have confidence in his er, it requires a few moments to lay the track before arriving at that ruling on this in an independent way based on what the committee station. refers to him. If government members really want to proceed to the pre-budget It is so clear in the attitude of my Conservative colleagues, espe‐ hearings, if government members really have confidence in the cially, that they have fully bought into the misinformation tactics of Speaker, and if they are saying, also, they'd like to hear from the the extreme right. It's never been more present than in the initial Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk, I'm fine with that, of purpose for the debate that we're having here today. We are here on course. They then have to amend their subamendment, pull out the Mr. Poilievre's privilege motion, and in debating that we have an part that kills the motion of privilege, that no longer makes it time‐ amendment and further a subamendment on the floor, and perhaps ly, that no longer allows this committee to report back to the Speak‐ another one now in regard to that motion. The initial motion is what er, and ask the Speaker his opinion on this matter. They should is key here. It is the reason behind the subamendment before this amend it as I've suggested. They have the power to do so, and I committee today. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 11

The Clerk of the Privy Council is an expert witness on the re‐ Ms. Annie Koutrakis: —you attack their credibility or stop lease of cabinet confidence. It was Mr. Shugart who agreed to re‐ them from speaking. lease all documentation related to the Canada student service grant, even prior to this committee making any requests. The appearance The Chair: Ms. Koutrakis, there is a point of order from Mr. of the Clerk of the Privy Council really is important as it relates Lawrence. back to Mr. Poilievre's initial motion. The truth is, this matter of Mr. Lawrence, go ahead. privilege raised by the honourable member is nothing but what ap‐ pears to be a cheap partisan stunt. It is complete mistruth wrapped Mr. Philip Lawrence: I'm a patient man. I have a five-year-old in a procedural bow meant to further the narrative of the Conserva‐ and a six-year-old, and they've taught me patience, but when we're tives. That is a tactic of the extreme right, which we have seen talking about Mr. Julian perhaps being part of the extreme right, I throughout the world as of late—this penchant for casting the truth think we've gone too far. I have no idea how this has anything to do aside and continuing to make an argument that has no basis in reali‐ with the subamendment. ty. The Chair: I don't— As many of my colleagues have said before this committee, over Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. 5,000 pages of documents were released by the Government of Canada with all information relating to the design and implementa‐ The Chair: That wasn't a point of order. It was a point of debate. tion of the Canada student service grant present and accounted for. I think the opposition was just plainly dumbfounded at the level of Mr. Fragiskatos, is yours debate or a point of order? detail that the non-partisan public servants left unredacted. Mr. Poilievre must have been completely stunned to see that documents Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I believe it is a point of order, Mr. Chair. stamped “Secret” and “Confidence of the Queen's Privy Council” It is simply a matter of being respectful and collegial towards col‐ were actually included in the documents and unredacted. We can leagues to allow them to finish making their points and not twisting find out exactly why those documents were included if we have the around their words for political purposes. clerk come before us and testify about that, yet for some strange The Chair: I don't think that's a point of order, Mr. Fragiskatos. reason my opposition colleagues are blocking that attempt. That's debate.

It's a whole new world, when opposition members are blocking We'll be going back to Ms. Koutrakis. the appearance of the non-partisan head of the public service. It's truly a real shame. Ms. Annie Koutrakis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Getting back to my point, I'm very sure that my colleagues were I thank my colleague for his point of order. I guess we're going to shocked at the level of detail included in these documents. At this agree to disagree on that point. point, the Conservatives and perhaps other opposition colleagues had a problem. They were likely sitting there thinking that since all I'll go back to my comments and say that I have never, in all my the documents were actually released, between that and the testimo‐ time as an MP—and it's been just a little bit over a year—seen an ny, they have nothing. opposition party refuse to allow a public servant with relevant in‐ formation to testify before a committee, especially when that public ● (1725) servant is the top boss. I've said this before in previous comments, I cannot imagine the sinking feeling they had when they realized and I echo what my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz said earlier. If we this, yet what is the truth? To my colleagues on the other side, truth place doubt in the Clerk of the Privy Council, then we absolutely is in the eye of the beholder. Taking a page from these extreme- have a much bigger issue on our hands than debating the suba‐ right groups that have sprung up around the world, they have per‐ mendment to the subamendment to perhaps another subamendment. haps decided to obfuscate and create their own narrative. When you think about it, this explains why colleagues do not want the Clerk It was clear from the outset what this committee requested in re‐ of the Privy Council to testify before us today, because his testimo‐ gard to documentation, and it was clear from the testimony of the ny would very likely crush the narrative that they have been trying Clerk of the Privy Council here what we would receive from him. to peddle for weeks now. In fact, again, over 5,000 pages of relevant information were re‐ leased with limited redaction. The clerk noted that he would en‐ As I noted earlier in my remarks, there was a time when civility deavour to ensure that this committee would have the information it would win out and parliamentarians would work together to fix the needed to fully understand what occurred with the design and im‐ problems of the day. There was a time when the truth would have plementation of the Canada student service grant. been accepted when the facts were presented. Unfortunately, we no longer live in those times. We now live in a time when, if, after be‐ He kept up his end of the bargain. My colleagues on the other ing presented with the facts, your argument is disproven, you dou‐ side know full well that the redactions present in those documents ble down anyway. When you are presented with expert witnesses— are about unrelated matters, but due to the nature of the document, they were redacted to allow for the information about the CSSG to ● (1730) be present. The law clerk himself redacted further, not only when Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough he received the documents but he redacted some of the redactions. South, CPC): I have a point of order. That is my understanding. 12 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

The motion by this committee recognized that these unrelated blow apart the fictitious narrative that Mr. Poilievre is trying to cabinet confidences would be redacted. This committee also under‐ spin; however, so be it. Mr. Poilievre and the other opposition stood that the parliamentary law clerk would remove some personal members want to get to the truth, so here we are. Let's get to the information from the documents as well. The Clerk of the Privy truth. It's time for the non-partisan head of our public service to Council could be saying this himself if we were to invite him here. come before us and give us the truth. I'm happy to hear that Mr. Julian says he wouldn't have a problem to have Mr. Shugart before us because I really believe we should, I have done this before. I am going to repeat my comments. I sooner rather than later. He actually took the extraordinary step of urge colleagues to put aside their partisan differences, to finally re‐ leaving in the names of public servants, and advised the Privacy turn to past times of collegiality and decorum in Parliament, to re‐ Commissioner that this would be the case. The Clerk of the Privy member we are here in this place to serve our constituents and to Council cannot control the fact that it was the motion by this com‐ put their interests first. Let's show some respect for our professional mittee that later caused the law clerk to redact those very names and non-partisan members of the public service, not use them as that the clerk endeavoured to release. If he could be here, he could ploys in a political game. explain that positioning himself. Mr. Chair, I ask colleagues to work with us to approve the suba‐ This committee received these documents on time. They were mendment to invite the Clerk of the Privy Council and other deputy forwarded to the law clerk, as was expressly stated in the initial ministers here forthwith. motion, and here we have the law clerk completing his own redac‐ The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Koutrakis. I am hopeful for discus‐ tions right around the time of prorogation. The law clerk released sions on the side as well. these documents to the members of this committee. The interesting thing here is that clearly the redactions by the law clerk are much I have on my list Ms. Khalid, Mr. McLeod, Mr. Fragiskatos and more intensive than the redactions in the original documents hand‐ Ms. Dzerowicz. ed over by the public service. Go ahead, Ms. Khalid. In order to ensure full transparency, the government House lead‐ Ms. (—Erin Mills, Lib.): Thank you er released the less-redacted documents anyway. In essence, the very much, Mr. Chair. Government of Canada fulfilled the promise of the Clerk of the Privy Council and the request of this committee vis-à-vis the mo‐ Thank you to all the members for indulging my participation in tion requesting documents. If the Clerk of the Privy Council were the committee today. allowed to testify, he would back up this very simple fact. Mr. Chair, if it's okay with you, can I please concede a few min‐ This brings us back around again to why we are still here debat‐ utes of my time to Ms. Dzerowicz? ing this subamendment. Quite simply, we are here because the op‐ Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. position majority cannot accept that they were actually given every‐ thing they wanted. It doesn't square with the narrative that they are It's my understanding that every MP is an associate member of trying to put out in public, just as the testimony of the clerk would the committees of Parliament, so it's no indulgence at all. Ms. not fit the narrative they are trying to put out in public. Here we are Khalid is here by right, and she is very polite and generous to talk debating a subamendment to an amendment to a motion that, in the about indulgence. It's our pleasure to have her here. I want to put end, is just a procedural trick to try to further this cheap political that on the record. stunt that is now falling apart day by day. The Chair: It's absolutely our pleasure to have her here, and Mr. We are weeks into this at this point. We have pre-budget consul‐ Lawrence. We've had others from time to time. You are sworn in, tations that this committee is mandated to complete, and I fully Ms. Khalid, in place of Mr. Fraser, I believe, and notices went to agree with Mr. Julian that we have to get to that. the clerk that you are in his place. ● (1735) ● (1740) We have a fix before us. With one simple vote we could set aside Ms. Iqra Khalid: Thank you very much for that. Mr. Poilievre's motion today, not defeat it but set it aside. We can The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Khalid. invite the head of the public service, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Ms. Iqra Khalid: As I was saying, Mr. Chair, is it okay to have Mr. Shugart, to this committee, and then he, along with relevant Ms. Dzerowicz take a few minutes of my time at this point? I'd like deputy ministers, can present their thinking and reasoning around to add on to what she has to say as well. the documents that were provided. The Chair: It's okay if you're ceding some of your time to Ms. They could walk us through how all discussions and decisions Dzerowicz. regarding the Canada student service grant were unredacted. They can walk us through why some matters were redacted, and how Go ahead, Ms. Dzerowicz. they were unrelated to our topic of study. They can finally put to Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. rest any concerns of the opposition. Thank you to my honourable colleague Ms. Khalid. I know this wouldn't fit the narrow political interests that the ma‐ jority opposition has tried to push. I know this would completely Welcome to our committee. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 13

I appreciate the nobleness of Mr. Fragiskatos' comments. He is We'll go back to Ms. Khalid. indeed correct. Ms. Iqra Khalid: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Sometimes when people make a point, I kind of forget it. As I get older I do forget my comments and I prefer to make them al‐ As Mr. Fragiskatos pointed out, I am an associate member of this most right away. Mr. Julian made a number of comments, and I committee but I only watch the committee proceedings from the want to address them directly. outside. I don't get to see what is happening within the committee The first is that we're holding up the finance committee from and to understand the intricate delicacies of all the motions and the moving forward to pre-budget consultations. In this meeting I've various amendments to the motions, and then the various suba‐ not said this and it's very important for me to reiterate it. mendments to the motions, and then, as Mr. Julian tried to do today, a subamendment to the subamendment. On October 8, when we first convened as the finance committee after we had elected our chair and our vice-chairs, I presented a As I get on the phone with my constituents about what happens pre-budget consultation motion. I was the first one out the door to in Ottawa, I had a very interesting call with a young lady who had do so. We could have gone ahead with it if Mr. Julian or any one of been following what's been happening with this specific topic over the opposition members decided they were going to support it. That the past number of months. She asked me to explain to her what is did not happen. going on. She asked what exactly is the objective of doing all this? What are we trying to prove here? Is this going to better our gov‐ Mr. Poilievre interrupted our ability to move to a vote to decide ernment services in any way? How is this going to impact me per‐ on pre-budget consultations with a motion on a point of privilege, sonally? following which we have gone to a subamendment to an amend‐ ment of the original motion. I want to make sure I put that on the table. We wanted to go right into pre-budget consultations. I do not I listened to her and her frustrations, and initially I started to try take lightly anyone saying that in any way the Liberal government to explain exactly what was going on. I think we both got lost in all team has been trying to stop us from moving directly to pre-budget the proceedings, etc., and then she told me to stop. She asked if I consultations. could tell her one thing that was going to help her as my constituent out of all these documents that were being put forward, all this I want to get to Mr. Poilievre's motion. In his point of privilege questioning of the integrity of the public service or the integrity of that he says we should vote on, he said, “Your Committee has con‐ x, y or z people among those whom we elected to serve us. I cluded that the government's response failed to comply with the or‐ thought about it for a minute and I said I really couldn't point to a der”—which is the July 7 order—in terms of having all of the WE single thing that would impact the challenges she was having at this documents submitted to the public and the law clerk for redaction. time with affordability, housing, finding affordable child care, wor‐ rying about her kids and their safety in their school—how that's go‐ We have spent every single meeting since October 8 proving that ing to go—and her job. we have completely followed through on that July 7 motion. We've explained why we followed through on it. We have explained what As I sat here today, watched the discussions with intrigue and cabinet confidences were. We explained the transmittal letters. We saw the subamendments being proposed here in front of me, I tried have gone through every single bit of it. We even gave examples ad to get a grasp of this myself. I think my two cents to this debate nauseam of what was actually redacted. We then put the subamend‐ would be to help us understand and to add that extra value of why ment on the table in order to say, look, even if you don't believe us, we're sitting in these seats in the first place, why we are working why don't we bring the people to the table? Let's bring the Clerk of long hours, why we travel all across the country or halfway across the Privy Council. Let's bring the law clerk. Let's bring any relevant the country, whether it's virtually or in person, to sit in the House deputy ministers, and let's, in public, transparently, deal with this and to debate a lot of these important issues. once and for all, because we don't think there is any smoking gun. There is nothing that we are trying to cover. Really why we do all of that is to serve Canadians, to ensure that We proposed that motion fairly early on, and that was, again, not the time we're spending in these debates is of value to individual taken up by Mr. Julian or by any of the other opposition members. I Canadians and to young families who are trying to thrive and strive do not take lightly anyone saying that we have in any way tried to in this very serious pandemic, and to make sure that the health and hold up the pre-budget consultations. If anything, we have done our well-being of Canadians is well taken care of. I think that's our very best at every moment to try to move as quickly and as expedi‐ obligation as members of Parliament, regardless of what side of the tiously as possible to pre-budget consultations. aisle we sit on. I want to reiterate another point I've made. Mr. Julian has pro‐ I know for a fact how hard each one of us works. I sat on com‐ posed zero new ideas for how we can actually break this logjam. mittee with Mr. Falk in the last Parliament. We were on the justice With that I want to say a huge thanks to Ms. Khalid for allowing committee together and we had such a wonderful relationship with me a few minutes to address Mr. Julian's comments. respect to the work we were doing in that committee, again serving Canadians. Thank you. The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz. We've travelled together— 14 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

● (1745) around the integrity of the public service, the integrity of elected of‐ The Chair: Ms. Khalid, I believe Ms. Jansen is making a point. I ficials, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on. see her waving her hands around. I don't hear her through the sys‐ tem, but I think she is making a point on relevance, although I I was giving my personal anecdotes as to what Canadians see, know Mr. Falk wanted you to talk about him on the justice commit‐ what my constituents see, the feedback that they've been providing tee. me over the past number of months, as well as the issues they've been telling me that they're faced with on a daily basis as they deal Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. with this pandemic. The Chair: If yours is a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos. There have been a number of organizations that have reached out to me, to my constituency office, to my Hill office, to ask if they Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I believe it is a point of order, Mr. Chair. could participate in the pre-budget consultations. I know how im‐ I don't know Ms. Jansen very well. Obviously, she is a newly portant it is that we hear from Canadians to really form that policy elected MP. I would just ask her, if she does, indeed, have an issue, and to really provide that assistance and that help to Canadians as something that she wishes to raise by way of a point of order, that we spend so much time travelling across the country and doing that she actually formally intervene because it's not parliamentary prac‐ hard work that we're elected to do. tice to wave one's arms. I also noticed that when she does have par‐ ticular issues, she seems to be laughing along. I'm not sure if that is I'll hit on one more phone call that I had quite recently. It was done as a measure of goodwill or if that's done because she dis‐ from a gentleman who had just at the beginning of this pandemic agrees with the speaker. lost his job, and he was able to get the CERB to be able to keep the lights on in his home. As we were having a discussion last week ● (1750) about his job situation and his intrigue with the new CRB and when The Chair: I don't think that is the— that was going to be put forward, he again asked me, from that pub‐ Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: She can simply say, “I have a point of lic perspective, what is going on in the House. I again tried to ex‐ order,” and intervene that way, rather than forcing you to guess, plain to him, and he used a very interesting phrase that I questioned which is very unfair to you, Mr. Chair. him on. Frankly, the point of order that she apparently wished to make is He said, “It looks like, Ms. Khalid, you've been CoNDP'd,” and I one that I take issue with. Ms. Khalid was staying entirely relevant, said, “What's a CoNDP?” He said, “Well, it looks like the House and I think was putting on the record very pertinent points. has been taken hostage, dealing with and just falling into complete‐ ly irrelevant matters, into amendments and subamendments and all The Chair: We'll go back to Ms. Khalid— of this extra language that just does not impact Canadians at all.” I Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: I have a point of order. told him that using a term like CoNDP is probably not the best The Chair: —and let her start— way—and if Mr. Chair had been there on that call, he would proba‐ bly have told him it was unparliamentary. Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. The Chair: —and Ms. Jansen wasn't waving her fist. It was just However, it's again to the point that we need to ensure that what‐ her hand. ever we're doing as parliamentarians, we're doing with integrity and we're doing it with a commitment and a focus to support Canadians Ms. Dzerowicz, go ahead. in this really important time. They have been telling us consistently Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Do we have quorum? I see that there are that now is the time that they need that help and that support. some Conservatives missing and Mr. Julian is missing. Perhaps we don't have quorum anymore. I will leave it there, Mr. Chair. I see that you've unmuted your‐ self. Perhaps it is to talk about something? The Chair: We do have quorum. Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: I'm sorry. It was just in case. ● (1755) The Chair: I was going to ask you to tie this into the subamend‐ Thank you. ment to the amendment, if you could. The Chair: Okay, thank you. Ms. Iqra Khalid: Absolutely. As I said, I have been trying to Ms. Khalid. give that outside perspective on what Canadians are seeing when Ms. Iqra Khalid: Thank you very much for that, Mr. Chair. I do they see all of these debates. To them, in layman's language, they appreciate your proactivity and your diligence in ensuring that just do not understand why we're spending so much government members all have their say and are well respected with their per‐ time and resources, when what they really want and what they spectives here in this committee. elected us to do is to provide support to them during this pandemic during the toughest time in our country in our history. As I was saying, the point that was being raised that I was trying to lend to this debate is an outside perspective of what the Canadi‐ I will leave my remarks there, Mr. Chair. ans we serve as members of Parliament see and what they interpret Thank you very much again for your indulgence. when they see all of these amendments, subamendments, suba‐ mendments to the subamendments, and all of this questioning The Chair: Thank you very much. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 15

We will go to Mr. McLeod, who is followed by Mr. Fragiskatos ● (1800) and then Mr. Kelly. Mr. Pat Kelly: I have a point of order. Go ahead, Mr. McLeod. The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Kelly, on a point of order. Mr. Michael McLeod (Northwest Territories, Lib.): Thank Mr. Pat Kelly: I sincerely apologize to Michael McLeod for the you, Mr. Chair. interruption, but I want to ask the clerk to clarify. If we go past 6 It's certainly an honour for me to sit here to serve on the finance p.m., will that interfere with a— committee. I have been doing exactly that for the last three years. The Chair: It's a very valid point, Mr. Kelly. I'm trying to listen very patiently to everything that's being said. Mr. Pat Kelly: Maybe the clerk could tell us what— I have been around for a long time on this committee. I'm second only to you in terms of longevity and tied with Mr. Poilievre. Over The Chair: I was interrupting Mr. McLeod due to capacity prob‐ the last three years, we've certainly all worked really hard to speak lems on the Hill. The heritage committee can't meet if we continue freely and allow people to speak freely, although it has been a little to operate, so the meeting is suspended. bit challenging sometimes. [The meeting was suspended at 6 p.m., Thursday, November 5. ] Over the last couple of years, our committee has done some very ● (1800) good and important work that we can be proud of, from our review ______(Pause)______of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Fi‐ nancing Act to our hearings on multiple budget implementation ● (1602) acts, our meetings earlier this year on our government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the work and the efforts we made to [The meeting resumed at 4:02 p.m., Tuesday, November 17. ] deal with the WE Charity issue. A lot of information was requested ● (30400) and received that I don't think we really did justice to by not getting together and putting all the documents on the table to go through as The Chair: Okay, we'll try this one more time. a committee. We shall call the meeting to order. We're now resuming meeting I come from a different style of governance. The Northwest Ter‐ number five of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fi‐ ritories practices a consensus government. The basis of a consensus nance. Pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on Wednesday, government is good communication. It includes trust and also in‐ September 23, 2020, the committee is meeting virtually in a hybrid cludes respect. We also go to great lengths to make sure that people format. don't attack staff, public servants or other people who are not present to defend themselves. It really is troubling to hear some‐ Today's meeting is taking place by video conference, and the body say that the clerk's bonus depends on this Prime Minister. It's proceedings will be televised and made available on the House of almost implying that the clerk would be dishonest and would do it Commons website. for money. That's a very offensive comment in my view. We're meeting with just committee members, both here in room Amongst our most significant work is the committee's pre-bud‐ 025 and virtually across the country. I think that all the members get consultation report, which is required by the Standing Orders, know the rules by now, so I don't think I need to go through them. and this upcoming study would be my fourth with the committee. I found every one of these studies to be very valuable to my work as We're starting where we left off. a member of Parliament, and I believe it's the same for all members I have served with. It allows us to hear from many witnesses, from I have first on my list, Mr. Peter Fragiskatos, but Mr. Poilievre coast to coast to coast, and it brings many requests for the govern‐ you had...? ment's next budget, and this year is no different. These recommen‐ dations would be brought forward to several dozen final recom‐ ● (30405) mendations for consideration by the government. Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): Yes, I put my hand up Not only do we hear from groups and advocates that we deal before everyone else and I'd like to have the floor. with regularly in our constituencies, but it allows organizations The Chair: Okay, you can do that. I don't have a screen with the whose members we may not otherwise hear from in our regular hands on it here. day-to-day work to address us. Mr. Fragiskatos has informed me that he wants to speak, but your I'm one of three members who represent the northern territories, hand is showing up on the deck here, Mr. Poilievre. You're coming and I'm one of 10 indigenous MPs. I always try to make it a priority through bigger than in life right in front of me, so go ahead. to have northern and indigenous voices come before our committee during consultations. The Standing Committee on Finance has been Hon. Pierre Poilievre: I don't even know how that's possible, able to hear from many of these voices during our in-person Ottawa but thank you very much for saying so. meetings and our committee tours, which, because of COVID, we will not be able to do. It's great to be with you today, Mr. Chair. 16 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

As you may have heard, there's been some debate in the public Thank you very much. realm about the proceedings we've had over the last several weeks. ● (30410) I think we all agree that it's time to get moving on our work and put an end to this Liberal filibuster. As a result, I am prepared to move The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Poilievre. a motion that would achieve that goal. This motion would effec‐ We haven't received a copy of it yet, or the clerk hasn't, so we tively set aside for the time being my point of privilege until it can certainly would have to receive a copy of it before we go to debate. be addressed, and hopefully, the breach of privilege that precipitat‐ We have a problem procedurally as well. We can't take another mo‐ ed it removed. tion when one motion is on the floor, so technically we'd have to In a manner consistent with the words that members of the gov‐ adjourn debate on the previous motion we were debating in order to ernment have spoken, I have a motion that I think should garner get to this one. unanimous consent here today. I think my assistant Craig has sent There are a couple of problems. One— this over to you and to your clerk so that it can be distributed to all members. It is translated in both official languages and it is in or‐ Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Chair, if I may, this could simply be der, because it, of course, is on the subject at hand. considered an amendment to the previous motions and thereby su‐ persede them. It reads as follows: The Chair: Yes, I understand that, but we can't take an amend‐ That the committee temporarily set aside the motion relating to the point of priv‐ ment. We already have a motion, an amendment and a subamend‐ ilege put forward by the Member for Carleton on October 8, 2020, and the sub‐ sequent subamendments moved by the Member for and ment. We can't take another amendment. the Member for Kingston and the Islands, and that the committee adopt all evi‐ dence heard in the First Session of the 43rd Parliament during the committee’s Mr. Julian has his hand up. study on "Government Spending, WE and the Canada Student Service Grant"; and that the committee order that by November 20, 2020, the government pro‐ Hon. Pierre Poilievre: You can take as many amendments as vide the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel with all documents originally re‐ you like. You can have a thousand amendments to a motion, Mr. quested in the July 7, 2020 motion moved by the Member for New Westminster- Chair. Burnaby, without any redaction, omission or exclusion except as would be justi‐ fied in sections and subsections 69(1) through 69(3)(b)(ii) of the Access to In‐ The Chair: No, we can't. formation Act, and that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Conflict of Inter‐ est and Ethics Commissioner appear no later than November 25, 2020 to discuss Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Okay. That's new. "cabinet confidence" exclusions to public disclosures, and that the Law Clerk Mr. (, Lib.): I have a point of order, and Parliamentary Counsel testify before the committee regarding documents re‐ ceived from the government pursuant to this motion. Mr. Chair. The Chair: If I have missed.... We have a point of order. Then I I believe my assistant Craig has shared that with all members of think Mr. Julian is going to speak. the committee. I think this should pass without any controversy, given that it's consistent with what government members have been Point of order, Mr. Fraser. stating publicly for the last week. Mr. Sean Fraser: There are two issues that I want to raise. We have a tweet from Mr. Rodriguez saying that he wants to end The first is of a purely technical nature. I saw a couple of notes the Liberal filibuster and he is prepared to release everything except coming through staff members stating that there was an issue with for cabinet confidences. Hopefully, we can dispense with that and hearing the phone line. I don't know if that's been resolved. I just then quickly get on to discussing committee business. wanted you to confirm that's okay. I'll conclude by saying that this has been five weeks of delays. The second issue, though there might be a procedural snafu, is Government members have now spoken for 28 hours over five that I haven't actually seen the suggested motion. It might make weeks, some 171,000 words. This is at a time when our economy is sense if we could get our hands on a copy so that we could actually effectively in a depression. We are the finance committee. It is our read it before we decide what to do with it. Would a 10- or 15- job to respond to that. minute suspension be okay with committee members so that we The Conservatives have been trying to get us back onto financial would have an opportunity to review what has just been proposed? issues so we can help Canadians protect their lives and livelihoods. The Chair: I'll see if people are willing to do that. Given that the Liberals have agreed to change course and release documents that they previously had redacted and guarded jealously, Did we get a copy? and given that they have said the only objection they have now is to the release of cabinet confidences, then I think we have a consensus Mr. Poilievre, we haven't got a copy of that yet. You can ask your to move forward and release all other documents that are not cabi‐ staff to get it to us. net confidence, while we talk to the Privy Council clerk to find out I'll take your point of order under advisement. I think we could his rationale in defining what he considers to be a cabinet confi‐ possibly suspend. dence for the purposes of the July 7 motion. I want to go to Mr. Julian first, though, to hear his comments. I I think we have a solution. After we pass this, Chair, I'm hoping expect this is related to the same issue. we can take a few moments to get on to the agenda of the commit‐ tee. Go ahead, Peter. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 17

Mr. Peter Julian: Yes, Mr. Chair, but I think the path forward, if I'm curious to know if committee members would be amenable government members are amenable to this compromise, is that the to suspending until either our next meeting or the next available government would withdraw its subamendment, which would allow meeting slot, whenever it may be, in hopes that we can use this sug‐ the amendment that was proposed earlier to be.... This would be the gested language as a starting point for a solution to move on with subamendment to the amendment to the motion. Procedurally, there the committee's work. is a way forward, but the government members would have to get the ball rolling by withdrawing their subamendment. Is that something the committee members would entertain? The Chair: I will first go to Mr. Poilievre and see where the oth‐ The Chair: Procedurally, there are a couple of ways forward: to ers are following that. do as you suggest, Mr. Julian, or to adjourn debate on the motion as a whole and consider this proposal. Mr. Poilievre, do you have some comments you want to make? We're certainly out of procedural order, but given the amount of Are we agreeable to suspending until 4:30 p.m., Ottawa time? time we've been spending on this issue, I don't think anybody will Hopefully, we have a copy here so that people can look at it and we challenge the chair on that. can resolve this issue. Are we agreed? Okay. Mr. Poilievre, respond in kind if you could, please. Before I suspend, Mr. Poilievre, did we get the copy? Hon. Pierre Poilievre: On the procedural question, as you know, The clerk now has the copy, so we will get it out to everybody. Chair, committees are their own masters, so it is possible for us to We'll reconvene at 4:30. do whatever we want from a procedural point of view if we all agree. Thanks, all of you. The meeting is suspended until 4:30. The Chair: We can, with unanimous consent. It's not a problem. ● (1615) ______(Pause)______On Mr. Fraser's point that he needs some time to go back to his colleagues, the government as a whole, are we amenable to that to ● (1630) see if we can come to some agreement? ● (30435) Hon. Pierre Poilievre: How long is this going to take? The Chair: We shall reconvene and see where we are on this Mr. Sean Fraser: I don't know. I don't want to commit to being particular issue. back here in 90 minutes, which is the ordinary schedule for our meeting. I would suggest we look at whatever the next available Mr. Fraser, you are on deck. slot is for the committee to sit. ● (30440) I do want to solve this problem, and I don't want to continue to Mr. Sean Fraser: Mr. Chair, I hope you'll be forgiving in the kick the can down the road. Ideally, if we can reach a solution, we procedural scenario, because I don't plan to address the subamend‐ are looking at having the Governor of the Bank of Canada here as ment but I do want to have a conversation with committee mem‐ soon as our next meeting. I would love to be able to solve this prob‐ bers. lem before that. Thanks, Pierre, for putting something forward. I think there's a Obviously, this is not something I control. It's a committee deci‐ starting point for us to work with. I have questions about a couple sion, and I'm here in good faith. I do want to solve this problem, of things and I don't know if I'll be satisfied about them in the next and I appreciate efforts of different committee members, Pierre in hour. particular. I think what you're trying to do is put forward something productive, and I would like to work with it. Your motion, towards the end, mentions having the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Ethics Commissioner appear. Was that sup‐ I haven't even had the chance to review section 69 of the Access posed to say the law clerk? to Information Act, since we got your motion just after this meeting started. I really do want to find a solution here, so I would take the Mr. Pierre Poilievre: No, it's supposed to say the Ethics Com‐ next available slot in hopes we can solve this problem and still have missioner. the governor attend our Thursday meeting. Mr. Sean Fraser: Okay. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: When is the next slot? Mr. Sean Fraser: I don't know. There are a few technical issues on the timing of what's feasible for the government to get their hands on and get to the law clerk. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Chair, can the clerk or someone tell us? I'm not sure about whether.... I don't want to set up a potential vio‐ The Chair: Our next regular slot is Thursday. Certainly, if lation of privilege by saying that documents have to arrive by Fri‐ there's any availability tomorrow,,,, There's no availability, Madam day if in fact they can't get them for a few days after that. Clerk. The bigger thing here—and I don't know how committee mem‐ That's one of the problems we have in the world we live in now. bers will react—is that I could use a little bit of time just to make Normally, we would be able to find some time tomorrow. Unless sure I understand the motion and that we're not being rushed to the another committee forgoes their spot tomorrow, it would be our point that I make a mistake in my understanding of it. next regular meeting. 18 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

I would suggest, if there are also some backroom discussions, to Mr. Sean Fraser: Sure, Mr. Chair. see if we could be relatively certain when we got to committee that we're going to solve this impasse. I think we could still deal with Pierre, I hope you don't mind me shortcutting you here. getting the pre-budget consultations lined up and probably hear the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the deputy governor in the Just in response to Mr. Kelly, I would plan, if this meeting were second hour on Thursday, if behind the scenes discussions look like to suspend or adjourn, to get on the phone and open up some of the this could be solved. legislation and review a few pieces of the motion this evening. I can't guarantee saying it will be two hours and I'll have an answer. You can think about that, Mr. Poilievre. If I do, I'll call Pierre as soon as I do, or the other members of this Mr. Julian had his hand up. committee who are interested in speaking, with a view to resolving the situation as soon as possible. Peter. Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Chair, I'm a little perplexed because this I do hesitate, having just received the motion, to make decisions compromise proposal basically corresponds to things that govern‐ on it. I would like to satisfy myself that I'm confident on what I'm ment members have been offering for weeks. I'm a little surprised agreeing to. There are a few items in there that we hadn't discussed when the documents have already been provided. We already know before as a committee, including the Ethics Commissioner. I men‐ which documents are subject to cabinet confidence so the deadline tioned the technical possibilities of just getting documents quickly, of this Friday should not be a problem. but I do want to take the time to fully appreciate what the sections of the legislation that have been cited actually say. I would under‐ The issue around the Privy Council and the Ethics Commissioner take to have a phone call tomorrow morning with anyone on this is upon invitation. That shouldn't be a problem either. committee who wants to speak.

I'm a little perplexed. This is a compromise that seems to meet The one caution I have is that I am booked for a couple of meet‐ the government more than halfway, maybe three-quarters of the ings later this evening that will eat into a few hours up until about way, and we have not had a functioning finance committee since 10 p.m. It's not as though this is the only task I'll be working on this August, as you know, Mr. Chair, since the Prime Minister abruptly evening. If it's possible for me to get through my concerns that prorogued Parliament and shut down all the committees. soon.... I don't understand why we would take more time to meet what the government members have already offered. I think we should I will give it my best effort, Mr. Kelly, to resolve it on that time‐ be able to resolve it at this meeting. line, and if not, hopefully as soon as tomorrow. ● (30445) The Chair: Mr. Kelly wants in next, and then Ms. Jansen. The Chair: I would note one thing as well, Mr. Julian and Mr. Mr. Pat Kelly: I think you were going to let Mr. Poilievre get in. Poilievre, that in the motion there is really not a clear direction, I think, to what we want the law clerk to do. That may have to be The Chair: Okay. I can't see people, as I said. rectified as well, if we're going to try to deal with what's here. That was drawn to my attention by the clerk. It will be Mr. Poilievre, then Mr. Kelly, and then Ms. Jansen. In any event, I will go back to Mr. Poilievre. Did you want to hold back, Pierre? Members, my screen is not working. The only members I can see Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Well, I think Ms. Jansen was before me, are in this room. If you want in, raise your hand. The clerk will no‐ so I think we should go to her first. tify me and we'll get to it. The Chair: Okay. Mr. Poilievre is next...or Mr. Kelly. Mr. Pat Kelly: I'm happy to let Mr. Poilievre speak instead, if Ms. Jansen, the floor is yours. you're going to give him the floor. My only contribution is just to Mrs. (Cloverdale—Langley City, CPC): say that I heard what Mr. Fraser said. I understand his concern Thank you. around wanting to review the section that is referenced in the mo‐ tion and his desire to ensure that he actually knows what he is I'm just worried for Canadians, who are in an incredible time of agreeing to. I understand that. crisis, that we have been just holding off and stalling. This feels I wouldn't think we'd need to wait until there is another commit‐ like more stalling, giving, perhaps, the Prime Minister more time to tee meeting available. Maybe he can get back to Mr. Poilievre or do his great reset. I'm getting all kinds of calls about this right now. other members of the committee outside of the committee structure It's a big concern. and meet maybe later on this evening. I wouldn't think that would be too soon for him to review the section, maybe talk to his col‐ I'm begging you. We have come this far. We have come where leagues, and satisfy himself that he knows what he is agreeing to. you wanted us to come. Please let us go forward with this now so that we can actually help Canadians where they most need it. The Chair: Mr. Poilievre or Mr. Fraser, whoever wants to go next. The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jansen. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 19

Mr. Poilievre. very quickly. It's short. It's about 100 words long and basically says Hon. Pierre Poilievre: I agree entirely with Ms. Jansen. “cabinet confidences”.

On the first point regarding the WE scandal, this is five weeks None of the excuses we're hearing today make any sense. It that the government members have been dawdling and giving looks like we're being sent off on another wild goose chase to waste 171,000 words of speechifying. They're talking about the Bible, the 48 hours of our time, rather than getting this done so we can get Torah, the Koran, Greek philosophers, cartoon characters and ev‐ back to our jobs. erything under the sun to run out the clock and avoid releasing these documents. Ms. Jansen is quite right. I sometimes wonder if the government Today I came forward with a motion that reflected the compro‐ is not just covering up the WE scandal here with this endless fili‐ mise that the Liberal House leader effectively agreed to when he buster but also doesn't want any scrutiny of this grand reset that the tweeted about it earlier this week. Now we're finding that tweet Prime Minister is now talking about, this idea that he is going to isn't consistent with what the Liberals are prepared to do. We said renovate Canadian society to fit his “Trudeaupian” ambitions. This we would be willing to put aside for now the documents that the is not a time to re-engineer society to his liking or his socialist ide‐ government claims are cabinet secrets and that the government ology. would release everything else. They claim it was cabinet confiden‐ tiality that they needed to protect, and that was their major objec‐ ● (30450) tion with releasing these documents unredacted. We put forward a motion that does what they they wanted to do, and now they're say‐ This is a time to get people safely and securely back to work, to ing they're not so sure. protect their lives and livelihoods, not a time for government to The timelines are not an excuse either. The documents are in the take advantage of the crisis in order to massively expand its powers government's possession. All they have to do is send them over at the expense of Canadians' freedom. That's what we should be without the black ink. If they have versions with black ink, they talking about here in the finance committee. We should be standing must also have the pre-existing versions without black ink. These up against government power grabs like this grand reset the Prime are digital documents. I presume that the copies sent over to the Minister is discussing. committee were not the only copies, that they are now blacked out and there's no way to get hold of the originals. The originals are I'm beginning to wonder if this filibuster is about more than just there. The government knows what they are. They have an army of covering up the WE scandal, and also about covering up the gov‐ public servants who can produce them without the black ink. They ernment's grand schemes for social and economic engineering, to could send them over on a USB stick, or possibly even an email at‐ cover up the power grab that he has lusted over since the beginning tachment, to the law clerk this evening if they wanted to. To sug‐ of this crisis. Frankly, we've lost patience. We want an answer. We gest that they can't get it done by Thursday—sorry, Friday.... I gave want to get on with the job. them until Friday, for God's sake. I don't know how long it takes it to send an email. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Then to claim that they can't get their act together and have the Clerk of the Privy Council come to testify by the date in the mo‐ ● (30455) tion, which is I think mid next week...that too is ridiculous. He lives in Ottawa. He has access to electronic communications. He certain‐ The Chair: I have three people on my list: Mr. Kelly, if you still ly can make himself available. It would not be hard for him to want in, Ms. Dzerowicz and Mr. Julian. move his schedule around because the Parliament of Canada has asked him to do so. Mr. Kelly, do you still want in? There is no logistical reason that the government can't simply agree to this motion tonight. It's more dawdling and more delay. Mr. Pat Kelly: No, I don't think I'm on the list, or I don't need to Meanwhile, we have millions who are without work and businesses be. are getting evicted, because the government once again messed up the rent relief program, a program that could have been fixed here The Chair: That's not a problem. in this committee but for the fact that we're paralyzed by a five- week Liberal filibuster. Now we're being asked for another 48 I have Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Julian and then Mr. Fragiskatos. hours for them to go back to read a one-paragraph motion. With regard to section 69, Mr. Fraser, I think you're being a little Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's nice to be back bit modest about your abilities. You are a skilled lawyer and a here in Ottawa, actually. It's nice to see everyone in the room. learned gentleman. You can read section 69 of the Access to Infor‐ mation Act in a couple of minutes. You are more than intelligent For Ms. Jansen, I absolutely agree with you, and I think we prob‐ enough to do that. In fact, I rather suspect that you know the section ably all agree that we all want to get back to business. Getting back already, because I know you spend a lot of time reading these to business for me, at this moment, means that we want to get right statutes. I don't say that facetiously. You could master that section to pre-budget consultations. 20 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

I'll just remind everyone once again that on October 8 when we ing our last few weeks. I think we were desperately trying to find a first met, within the first few minutes of our actually convening the compromise, and we had proposed a subamendment that we had committee, I did introduce a motion for us to get started on pre- hoped would address the issues raised by the opposition— budget consultations. I will tell you that if we want to get right ● (30500) down to business, we can get down to business ASAP if the point of privilege that Mr. Poilievre introduced after my motion to start Mrs. Tamara Jansen: On a point of order, is that not changing pre-budget consultations were withdrawn. There is absolutely no the actual testimony— delay on our part. Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: That is not a point of order. There was a motion that I'm very grateful to Mr. Poilievre for Mrs. Tamara Jansen: —with what she just did...? putting forward today. I will say to you, though, that it was given to Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: That is not a point of order. us during committee. If this were something that we would have wanted to already have decided on, it would have been.... Often, it's Mrs. Tamara Jansen: I'm just worried that you're changing the not uncommon for us to be given these motions beforehand. We testimony. could have contemplated it beforehand. We could have already read and reviewed it and then have come here today for a decision, but Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: No. I'm just saying that— that was not done. It was given to us during our meeting. The Chair: No, Madam Jansen. She is relating to what Mr. Again, I am very grateful that Mr. Poilievre has proposed some‐ Poilievre said in his remarks, so I think it is.... We're not on regular thing. As my colleague Mr. Fraser has indicated, I think it looks procedure at the moment—we're batting this issue around—so promising. I think there are a lot of elements that could get us to there is a fair bit of leniency. where we all want to end up, but we do want a little time to actually Ms. Dzerowicz. reflect on it properly. Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Thank you so much. My understanding of what Mr. Fraser has proposed and what our chair has actually tried to relay is that we've proposed something I also agree with Mr. Poilievre when he says that my colleague very expedited that maybe could set us back on track by the time Mr. Fraser is extraordinarily capable. In spite of his great capacity, I we get here on Thursday. If I heard my colleague Mr. Fraser cor‐ do think it is fair for us to make sure that we understand the motion rectly, he has indicated that he is willing to start working on this to ensure that we have a chance to read the references relayed in the immediately this evening, in addition to a couple of other things he motion to be crystal clear because no one wants to delay this any has on the table, and that he has offered a phone call tomorrow to further. whomever would like to discuss it—from all parties—so that we The last thing I'll mention, again, is that it's important to remind could maybe answer some questions and continue to proceed to‐ the committee that we have spent almost two months of testimony ward what we are hoping is some sort of agreement. relaying why there wasn't a WE scandal and why there wasn't a I think I heard that we could also figure out—if we do find some cover-up. If we go through all of the testimony of July and the be‐ agreement—a way to deal with it procedurally at the onset of our ginning of August, you will see that this has been very clearly artic‐ meeting on Thursday if we are not able to find an available meeting ulated through the numerous witnesses who have come before this space tomorrow, if one doesn't miraculously come free. Then we committee. can actually get down to business and hear from our governor and I also want to relay that there's no conspiracy around the econo‐ deputy governor this Thursday. my or a fiscal position. Indeed, our government House leader, I be‐ I didn't hear anybody trying to say “let's just keep on waiting”. lieve, has proposed a motion to create a special committee to over‐ What I heard is, let's try to move as quickly as possible, let's fairly see investments related to COVID-19. For a while we were desper‐ have a chance to actually look at this motion and let's make sure ate to try to ensure that we continued to provide maximum account‐ that we understand it completely. We're going to start working on it ability and transparency to the Canadian public during this unprece‐ right away. We're willing to actually meet on this by phone call to‐ dented time. We're at a time when we all absolutely agree that we morrow morning and try to figure out all the steps we need to be are spending a lot of money very quickly. We're trying to find ways, able—if we have some sort of agreement—to resolve it within the in addition to this finance committee, to ensure that we have an ad‐ initial part of our Thursday meeting so that we can get right down ditional committee to oversee the investments so we continue to be to business on Thursday. transparent and accountable for every single dollar of taxpayer's money that we spend during this unprecedented time in our history. That is what I heard, and I don't think that in any way is us trying to delay or any further delay tactic. I think that is just responsible Those are my remarks for now, Mr. Chair. on our part in terms of reviewing the motion that was presented to Thank you for allowing me to say a few words. us here at committee. The Chair: Okay. I also want to address Mr. Poilievre. He always makes me laugh with some of his references. I just want to correct for the record that Mr. Julian, then Mr. Fragiskatos, then we'll have to see where there was no one who was bringing up the Quran or the Torah or we're at. some of the other references he was mentioning earlier today dur‐ Mr. Peter Julian: Thank you, Mr. Chair. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 21

The finance committee was charged back in March with oversee‐ ● (30505) ing government spending. There were two roles to that, making The Chair: I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but the motion sure that people were being helped through this pandemic, and also is technically not on the floor, because it's not in order. We're making sure that the government was actually spending money in a bouncing it around to see if we can find a way through this, and get way that ensured that people, small businesses, the folks who need‐ to a solution before the Thursday meeting. ed it, received those funds. We had those twin responsibilities, and we performed them admirably until August 18 when the Prime Next I have Mr. Fragiskatos. Are your comments going back to Minister unceremoniously and unilaterally prorogued Parliament. your original thoughts, or are you on the point we're working on here? Since then, for the last three months, between the prorogation and the filibuster, the finance committee has been unable to per‐ Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I was going to share some thoughts in form its duties it was charged with by a unanimous motion of the general with where we are, and where we might be going, but I see House of Commons. The government members have been saying Mr. Poilievre has jumped back into the meeting. If he wanted to that the opposition needs to compromise. There has been a whole come back on to revisit his position that he expressed a few mo‐ range of suggestions brought forward. Every time it's greeted with, ments ago with respect to what Mr. Fraser proposed, I would be “Let us have some time to consider it”, and then the response that glad to hear him out, but if not, then I'll continue. has come back has been no. I don't see him motioning to speak, so I will share some thoughts I'm deeply concerned by this idea that, again, even though every with the committee. single element in Mr. Poilievre's motion has already been suggested by government members, the government again wants to consider it The Chair: Are your thoughts on this proposal of Mr. Poilievre's for a period of time. We have seen in previous manifestations of or do they go back to the original? this process, or this strategy, that the response that comes back is Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: I have a few thoughts on the proposal then negative. that's been raised, and also on the subamendment that we are still I'll say this facetiously, Mr. Chair, but the motion has less than technically debating. 200 words. That means the government is now asking for 48 hours The Chair: Let's set aside the subamendment for the moment. to consider this motion, which means about 15 minutes for every We'll take your thoughts on this issue. single word of this motion to be scrutinized. Part of the motion says “member for Westminster-Burnaby”. Those are four words. That If we can't come to a compromise on this issue to see our way would be an hour of consideration that the government members forward and break the impasse, then we'll just rule the motion out seem to be asking for. For the life of me, I cannot understand why of order and hope that some discussions take place in the back‐ the government members are stalling, when what has been suggest‐ rooms before Thursday. ed by the government is being brought forward, albeit with the ad‐ dition of one additional witness, which is the Ethics Commission‐ You're on. er. . Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: First of all, Mr. Chair, it's a shame Mr. We've now had three months when we should have been focused Poilievre has disappeared again. I wanted to tell him, in a very on government spending, and making sure that people are being friendly way, that I feel a bit left out. I think other Liberal members taken care of. This is all through unilateral Liberal actions, first the might feel a bit left out too. I mean, Mr. Fraser is a very good guy, prorogation and now the filibuster. We have an opportunity today at but what about the rest of us? There were some very nice things this meeting to adopt this motion, to have Liberal members with‐ said about Mr. Fraser, but nothing nice was said about Mr. McLeod, draw their subamendment that is blocking it, and move forward. Ms. Koutrakis, me or Ms. Dzerowicz. I was hoping, seeing Mr. Poilievre commenting there, for maybe some compliments our way, There is really no reason to do anything but adopt the motion that but that's fine. It's all in good fun and all good-natured, always. Mr. Poilievre has put forward. I certainly support it. It's a reason‐ able compromise, and it would hopefully allow us to move back to More seriously, Mr. Chair, I want to make the case that in con‐ doing what we were asked to do by the House of Commons at the trast with what Mr. Julian just shared a moment ago, I think we're beginning of this pandemic: scrutinizing government spending, dealing here with elements of a motion that are new. I don't think making sure that as much as possible people are being taken care of it's uncalled for here that Mr. Fraser suggested that we would need during this pandemic. a bit more time to reasonably examine what has been proposed. It's not as though the proposal we came back with as Liberal members I don't understand the stalling technique. It is reasonable to ex‐ is somehow unreasonable. We're not asking for another week or an‐ pect, with this motion coming forward, that the government mem‐ other month. We're asking for just a bit more time to examine bers would have already done the consultation over the past hour. what's been suggested. They've got another hour to do it, to make the phone calls. Let's just get it done, so we can move on to do the work we were charged by Again, there are things in there that haven't been suggested be‐ a unanimous motion of the House of Commons at the beginning of fore. What is wrong with taking that into account? If we were al‐ this pandemic. We've been unable to perform for the last few lowed to take that into account by adjourning today's meeting, then months, first, because of prorogation, unilateral, and now, because we would hopefully get beyond this impasse and deal with matters of five to six weeks of filibusters. that we've been talking about doing for weeks. 22 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

I think it's a great thing that we would have the new Governor of To Mr. Julian's point about being x number of hours per word, the Bank of Canada come in and speak to us in a few days' time. obviously that's silly. The reality is that had we had this motion a The sooner the better. I would very much appreciate hearing the few hours before the meeting began, maybe we could have gotten new governor's perspective on a range of matters but certainly as it somewhere. I didn't see it until the clerk circulated it during this pertains to COVID-19 and where things currently stand. This is a meeting—I'm not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. new governor. He has put his views to the committee before with respect to COVID-19, but not in a very detailed way. He has given If we can't agree to suspend until the next available slot—and I public speeches on the matter as well, but we as a committee have would invite House leadership of each of our parties to have a con‐ not had an opportunity to engage with the governor meaningfully, versation to see whether another committee would yield time for us I'd say. tomorrow—then we can continue to debate the subamendment. It will delay my consideration of the motion and some of the conver‐ I think you'd accept, Mr. Chair, that meaningful engagement has sations I would otherwise have. However, I really am trying to use yet to take place. I would like to ask the governor his thoughts on a this as a helpful starting point. I think the Cabinet confidence piece range of issues and his thoughts pertaining to the bank's approach is a significant movement from where we last left off. to COVID-19 from a fiscal perspective. As well, much has been said in the business press and elsewhere with respect to new ap‐ If committee members want to go back to debating the suba‐ proaches that central banks are seeming to embrace. I'm thinking mendment for the evening, we can do that. I honestly believe it about modern monetary theory. What is the new governor's view on would be a far more productive use of time for me and others to that perspective in terms of economics? What interactions has he consider what's been proposed and to see if it's something we can had with other central bank governors around the world on how agree to in advance of the Thursday meeting. they are addressing COVID-19? How does Canada's approach I'll leave my comments there, Chair. If opposition members compare and contrast with what other bank governors are doing? I would agree to a suspension or adjournment, I think that's the best think that would be an opportunity, and hopefully the sooner the possible route so we can consider it. If not, it looks like we'll return better. I think if Liberal members were given an opportunity to ex‐ the subamendment. amine what's been suggested, we could get to that in a meaningful and timely way. It doesn't sound like Conservative members are ● (30515) anxious to go down that path. The Chair: Okay, I have Mr. Poilievre next. Go ahead. That's how I see this. I did have some thoughts on the subamend‐ What are your thoughts on what Mr. Fraser said, or anything else ment that was originally being debated and discussed, but I'll leave for that matter, on where we're at right at the moment? my thoughts there for now, Mr. Chair. I think I see other hands up of other Liberal members. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Listen, we've had five weeks to talk about this. We've, in fact, had longer than that. ● (30510) The Chair: We'll let you hold on to those thoughts for the mo‐ Mr. Julian's original motion for the disclosure of WE scandal ment on the subamendment. documents was passed—it's hard to believe, Mr. Chair—on July 7. It was July 7. We're closing in on December and we still don't have I'm not sure if I have the right order here, since I'm dealing with the documents. different systems, but on my list I have Mr. Fraser, Mr. Poilievre and Ms. Dzerowicz. Now they're saying, “Oh we just need a little itty-bitty more time to try to figure it all out.” Then we'll get here on Thursday and Is that the right order, Madam Clerk? Okay. they'll say, “Oh, it's still not enough time. We maybe need to give another five weeks of speeches.” Mr. Fraser. Mr. Sean Fraser: Thanks. Meanwhile, people are losing their livelihoods. We have the biggest deficit in the G20, the worst unemployment in the G7, other Going back to the issue of the proposal, I appreciate Mr. than socialist Italy, whose policies the government is desperately Poilievre's commentary. I enjoyed the job I had before politics. I trying to emulate here in Canada. We have easily the weakest econ‐ felt most days that I was half decent at it. omy in our peer group. We've increased our national debt by about 40% in seven months. There is no circumstance in the world where I would have com‐ mitted to a binding decision minutes after receiving a motion, or We have all of these problems— even an hour after receiving whatever the suggestion would be, if I The Chair: Mr. Poilievre, I have a point of order from Mr. was engaged in another meeting during that time to consider it. Fragiskatos. I'm not trying to be tricky. The reality of the next couple of hours Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: The member knows very well that it is or evening, whatever it might be, is that I'm going to be engaged in not appreciated or acceptable to put points on the parliamentary this meeting until this meeting is done. I have a few other obliga‐ record that are simply not true. In the interests of having a parlia‐ tions tonight. I think it would be a more productive use of time if I mentary record that is accurate and reflective of what is actually could work on trying to figure out whether we can work with this going on in the world and in this country, I would ask for the mem‐ motion. ber to reframe the argument, or rethink— November 5, 2020 FINA-05 23

The Chair: I will have to cut you off, Mr. Fragiskatos. It's really far we've got nowhere. Even though we brought forward a motion debate. today, which reflects what the Liberal House leader has been tweet‐ ing about, and we thought he would be delighted to see us put for‐ I will say that I didn't think Italy had a socialist government at ward what he tweeted, now we get a “maybe”. We try our best to the moment, but maybe it does. match the demands of the government to deliver a solution that will Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre. get us back to work, and then what do you know? They show up and say it's not good enough, that they need to think about it for an‐ Hon. Pierre Poilievre: In the amount of time that you gave my other 48 hours. friend Mr. Fragiskatos to raise his point of order, which was a very generous amount of time, he managed to claim that I had stated a Where does all this end? When do we get back to work? It's been falsehood, but he couldn't think of a single example of anything I five weeks. said that was false. The Chair: I take it that you're not going to accept Mr. Fraser's I think it's quite clear that what I was saying is precisely true. We offer. do have the highest unemployment in the G7, but for socialist Italy. We have the highest deficit in the G20 as a share of our GDP Hon. Pierre Poilievre: It's just a little bit interesting that you at $380 billion. That is far and away the biggest deficit. We have said to us, Mr. Chair, that you thought we could maybe meet tomor‐ added about 40% to our national debt in seven and a half or eight row and then you changed your mind and said that, well, we're not months. sure if we can do that either. So we're being told— The Chair: Let me clarify that. In normal times, we normally Those are all factual statements. They are not pleasant things to could. I talked to the clerk, and I am told that there is no space say, but they are true, and we need to start saying them more and available for us tomorrow. That's a problem, given what we're deal‐ more because here we have a government that is trying to impose a ing with in the COVID world we live in and having to deal with socialist agenda on Canadians. Government spending in this coun‐ Zoom and scheduling, etc. in here. Normally, we could meet five try is now 55% of GDP. When the majority of the economy is con‐ days a week as a committee, but we're not in those kinds of time trolled by the government, you have a socialist economy. frames now, and that's a problem. I didn't change my mind. I just ● (30520) had to face the reality, I guess, that there's no space for us tomor‐ The Chair: I do think, Mr. Poilievre, we are straying far away row. from trying to establish some way of breaking the impasse with your motions on the floor. On Mr. Fraser's point, is there a willing‐ I do have Ms. Dzerowicz on my list, and then we're going to go ness to try to allow Mr. Fraser—I would expect the House leaders back to the subamendment, but just to give committee members as well—to try to come to a conclusion based on your motion here something to think about, I really do believe that if we work at it, today and to get it in place by tomorrow. If we can find time to we can have a solution to this issue for the Thursday meeting. have a meeting tomorrow, that would be even better—or it's not I want to mention this just for members to think about, because I time that we need to find, but the space to meet. Otherwise, hope‐ know that we all want to get to pre-budget consultations. We want fully at the start of the meeting we can round this out and come to a to read the 793 submissions that have been submitted. There are a conclusion on what documents are going to the law clerk so he can lot of good recommendations in them. We've seen some of the review them and come before us and he and the Clerk of the Privy briefs—at least some of us have because they've been sent to us di‐ Council can tell us if everything was according to the way we'd rectly. originally asked for it. Could you stick to that area? Otherwise I'm going to rule the mo‐ This is just for the committee to think about. Under our normal tion out of order, and we'll go back to the subamendment. standing order, we would have to report on our pre-budget consul‐ tations by December 8. There are, as I said, 793 briefs that have Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Right. Mr. Chair, I know you have been come in prior to August 15, so we would have those to work with. extremely liberal in permitting members of the government to dis‐ cuss everything from ancient religious texts to cartoon characters. I know that the analysts have been working on them and trying to I'm sorry if I managed to talk about economic— get them into summary order so that we could have a look at the The Chair: I've been extremely liberal with you. recommendations, etc. That would mean that we would have hardly any time, I guess, to really hear from witnesses in person, and we I don't think there's any question about that, giving you a wide would probably need two or three meetings—three, more than like‐ range to make comments, so if we could come back to Mr. Fraser's ly—as members to propose recommendations, discuss them and suggestion it would be awfully nice. agree on recommendations. That's scenario number one. That Hon. Pierre Poilievre: The difference is that when you're pre‐ would be a possibility. siding over government members, you are liberal with a small “l”, and when you're presiding over me you're a Liberal with a big “L”. The other possibility would be that we could ask for permission I would ask for the same licence to address issues as they have been from the House to table in the first week of February. To do so given in their interventions. would actually require getting permission from the House for the allowance of virtual hearings beyond December 11, because I un‐ We have work to do. We have facts to expose. We have asked derstand the motion that's in the House allows them only till De‐ this party, this government, to allow us the chance to do so, but so cember 11. 24 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

If we went with that scenario, we'd have a few time slots be‐ ● (30530) tween now and December 11, but after December 11 other commit‐ Mr. Peter Julian: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I received and tees are not meeting, or I don't think they are. If we were to hold read the motion at the same time as other members. three-hour meetings or more on December 14, 15, 16 and 17, in a three-hour slot we could hear 12 witnesses, six in each hour and a Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Thank you, Mr. Julian. I stand corrected half. That would allow us 48 priority witnesses. It would give the then. analysts January to draft the report, and we could do our work in the last week of January to get our report done and in. As I said ear‐ Then my point is just the one that was already made, so I won't lier, they are working on an appendix on the written briefs that will spend more than a second on it. I think if we wanted to come to an be very helpful to us. agreement, it would have been helpful for us to have received it be‐ forehand. The other point I'd make—and this, as I say, is just to think about, because we do have to get this work done somehow to bene‐ I do want to thank Mr. Julian for reminding all Canadians and fit Canadians—is that the analysts have also worked on our everyone who is listening that this committee was charged with fi‐ COVID-19 hearings in the spring. nancial accountability for all of our COVID expenditures. I want to remind Canadians that our former minister of finance and our fi‐ I've seen a bit of a summary of what the analysts put together pri‐ nance department officials did an extraordinary amount of work to or to prorogation. They have now continued on that work. There ensure that every two weeks we did receive a biweekly report on are a lot of good suggestions in those COVID-19 submissions that every single bit of spending that was approved, followed through we've seen. They have put together a comprehensive summary of on and spent. That report actually continued right up until proroga‐ the COVID-19 suggestions. We could also bring that forward—ei‐ tion in August. ther report it as a summary to the House—to give the Minister of Finance and others the opportunity to see what others said in those I want to make sure that Canadians are reminded that we have hearings in the spring. That would be in addition to whatever work been accountable. We have been transparent. We continue to be we may decide to do on pre-budget consultations. committed to both of those principles in as fulsome a manner as ● (30525) possible.

I'm just taking the leeway as chair to lay that out there. I do think I also wanted to address some of the comments that Mr. Poilievre people need to think about where we're going and how we can do has made because I don't like leaving things hanging. This govern‐ the best we can to get the information that Canadians spent time on ment doesn't have a socialist agenda. He has indicated that a num‐ when writing and submitting briefs to us and appear before us in ber of statements he has made are true. I will say that we have spent the spring. an extraordinary amount of money, and most economists have said and said that our federal government was right to actually spend as That's just there for your information. deeply and as widely as we have because of the unprecedented pan‐ Ms. Dzerowicz, you're still up for Mr. Poilievre's motions pro‐ demic and what our economy is going through. posal. It's not really a motion that's allowed on the floor, but we'll allow you in. Then we'll go back to the subamendment. I'll also say, since Mr. Poilievre has thrown out some numbers, that 75% of Canadians have returned back to their jobs. Our unem‐ Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I appreci‐ ployment rate has moved from 13.7% to 8.9%. These are positive ate that. moves. Indeed many economists have said that we are faring better than some other G7 nations, including the United States, in terms of I did want to start by replying to a couple of things that Mr. Ju‐ trying to restart our economy and move our economy forward as lian has talked to, and then I want to end where you just finished we move through this pandemic. right now. Mr. Julian had indicated that there was nothing new in the mo‐ There are over $230 billion in direct support measures for Cana‐ tion that was presented today. I agree with my colleague Mr. dians that have already been spent. You can tell how helpful they've Fragiskatos that there are at least a couple of new elements. One is been by the number of Canadians who have taken advantage of the Ethics Commissioner coming into it, which I don't have prob‐ those programs, including the 8.8 million people who have received lem with at the moment. It's just that it is a new element. CERB. Now it's been transitioned to CRB and to EI. More than 3.5 million employees are supported by the wage subsidy and 380,000 The other new element that I just noticed is that the committee students are benefiting from the Canada emergency student benefit. adopt all of the evidence from the first session around the WE Mrs. Tamara Jansen: Are we still talking about the motion, or Charity study. Again, I don't have a problem with that, but there are are we getting a little liberal here? some new elements in this motion that I just wanted to mention. Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: It's not a point of order, Ms. Jansen. I could be wrong, but it seems that when Mr. Julian was talking, he knew about the motion or had read the motion beforehand. The Chair: This is not a big “L” or a little “l”, Ms. Jansen. I Someone cynical might say that if not all of us had access to the think she is refuting some points in debate that Mr. Poilievre made. motion beforehand, maybe there wasn't really truly— I'll let her close quickly, and we'll go back to the subamendment. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 25

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: I'm only going to be another couple of I will echo what Mr. Dzerowicz said about your stewardship of minutes, Mr. Chair. I will not be speaking for many hours. I just the committee. I just wanted to take a moment at the outset, if I think that, if someone is throwing out misinformation, it's important could, to commend you on your leadership at the committee level. I to correct it for the record. know our deliberations have been going on for some quite some time, and you continue to do your best to guide us through the pro‐ Mr. Poilievre also indicated that we have not submitted the WE cess, often while being an hour ahead of us and for a period of time documents. All those documents have been submitted. They've while self-isolating. been redacted. They've also been submitted to the Law Clerk. There are two sets of documents that are out there. That has been I also want to take a moment and thank colleagues for their con‐ completed, so I wanted to correct that for the record. tinued participation in this process. While we may not agree, I think it would be fair to note that we are all here for the same reason, to I also wanted to indicate that there's been no conversation in our advance the interests of our constituents and Canadians. deliberations over the last few weeks, since October 8 when we re‐ convened, around cartoon characters. I think there was a reference Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by taking a moment to reflect on to a Polkeroo, and the only reason we mentioned Polkeroo was be‐ why we are here. Yes, it's to debate a subamendment, and yes, it is cause there were large periods of time when Mr. Poilievre was to come to a fair and equitable agreement in relation to the situation missing. I think we made a reference to a Mr. Polkeroo at that point regarding WE documents. However, what is at the core of this de‐ in time. bate that we have been debating here at the committee is our work in service to our constituents. I can say, at least for my part, that I want to end off with the proposal where Mr. Fraser has left us, working day in and day out to advance the interests of my con‐ which is to say that, in whatever remaining moments we might stituents is my first and primary thought. have of this meeting, which is 25 minutes right now, I think it's bet‐ ter spent on our trying to find a solution. Now, I know my colleagues in opposition may be fed up with this debate we are having, and that is understandable. They have I also want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for doing a really fine job of their goals, and they are trying to achieve those goals. They need outlining an alternate proposal in terms of a calendar. I think that these motions to go through quickly and without much scrutiny. clearly illustrates that we are willing to work, that we want to get to pre-budget consultations, that we've looked into how it is that we Mr. Chair, I'm going to continue, but something could be wrong can do some credible work around pre-budget consultations and with Ms. Jansen. I'm not sure if she's wanting to get in or to raise a hear from some of those who have submitted the 793 submissions, point of order. I'm not sure what's going on, but she seems anxious that it might take some extra effort on our part in December and and on the edge of her seat to intervene, or highly amused by the January in presenting, unusually, in February this report to the introductory remarks I've given, which I didn't think were all that House and that we're willing to really get down to business. amusing. However, if Ms. Jansen has something to say, I'm glad to yield the floor for a brief moment. She's saying no. I thank you for your work in doing that and outlining that to the committee. The Chair: I think Ms. Jansen is saying no. She is sitting on the edge of her seat though, Mr. Fragiskatos, just so you're aware. ● (30535) The Chair: Mr. Fragiskatos, we will be going back to you in a Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: Fair enough. I thought she was ready to moment. intervene there. Being a good committee colleague, I was willing, even in this case, to yield some time to the opposition even. That I don't see unanimous consent to allow the motion Mr. Poilievre shows the good faith that Liberal members are bringing to the com‐ has put forward, so we will go back to the subamendment. mittee level. I would wish Mr. Fraser and Mr. Poilievre well in terms of trying Getting back to what I was talking about, I think robust debate is to find a solution to this little bit of an issue that's left on this matter needed to ensure that we get this right. There is already confusion over the next 12 hours or so. on the opposition side after they passed a motion that specifically removed cabinet confidences and they received exactly what they If the House leaders are involved, I would just absolutely plead asked for. It seems in their rush to pass this motion, they confused with them to find a solution and allow us to go ahead so that we themselves, unfortunately. can, as a committee, get to the pre-budget consultations and to oth‐ er issues that must be addressed from the finance committee's point In regard to all these stories that the opposition is trying to weave of view. together with respect to WE Charity, it's no wonder that they find themselves confused. You really do have to be immersed in what I rule the motion as proposed out of order without unanimous has been going on and in the debate we're having to understand the consent. intricacies of what is going on here. What I can say for certain is that constituents are not bogged down in this minutiae on the WE Mr. Fragiskatos, the floor is yours on the subamendment from Charity affair, at least not the constituents in my riding. Frankly, the business that was left unresolved from our last committee meet‐ they have looked at this matter closely over the past few months, ing. and the conclusion of most Canadians seems to be clear: Nothing Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. improper occurred. 26 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

This makes sense, Mr. Chair, because after hours of testimony by would likely remind us that the cabinet and the government were those the opposition majority allege are involved, and after thou‐ navigating the first wave of the global pandemic, and some deci‐ sands of pages of documents have been released to the public, it's sions being taken were not relevant and were related to national se‐ clear that nothing untoward took place. curity and other matters that should not be made public. However, we cannot know any of these things for certain, because the opposi‐ Now, I understand that Mr. Julian may be itching to call me on tion majority continues to reign supreme here. relevance, which he hasn't done yet—it will the first in a while, but I guess the night is young—to the subamendment. That's under‐ ● (30540) standable. I apologize. I am a sucker for a good preamble. But I do promise that I'm getting to my point. I feel that we must lay this out I truly believe that each of us needs to have reverence for this properly for those who are watching at home so they can under‐ place. We are trusted by our communities to represent them in Par‐ stand exactly what we have going on here. In fact, I think it's liament. It is a unique privilege that few before us have had. When paramount that in all the things we do, we keep our constituents in‐ I was first elected in 2015, in London North Centre, I had high formed and ensure that they can follow along and understand the hopes for what could be achieved. I heard past stories of members false narrative that the opposition majority on this committee and in from all sides coming together to work toward the common good. Parliament is trying to weave. In fact, I've seen at least a few examples of this through the years. Chair, it's clear that my opposition colleagues know full well that the public is not biting on this web of stories that they're trying to Sitting here, and debating a motion that is being blocked by the push. Here we are, still debating documents, unredacted versions opposition to allow the highest ranking public servant in Canada that are in the hands of the law clerk, that really do paint a clear from testifying before a parliamentary committee, frankly, is unac‐ picture of what occurred and support the position of the govern‐ ceptable. ment. Mr. Poilievre can argue all he wants about privilege and doc‐ uments being redacted. However, the truth is clear. The motion that I thought that at some point we would be able to come to a com‐ Mr. Poilievre put forward specifically noted that cabinet confi‐ promise, and this subamendment seemed like a fair and equitable dences should be removed. The documents provided by the govern‐ way to get to the bottom of the story around these documents. It ment via the House leader were very clear and transparent in regard would allow us to hear from those who control the redaction pro‐ to the student service grant and provided an unprecedented look be‐ cesses. It is truly unfortunate that partisan politics are stopping us hind the curtain. Mr. Poilievre is not pleased that his plan to have from coming to that agreement. It's even more unfortunate that the law clerk review the documents backfired, that in fact it was the these partisan games are having the effect of politicizing the posi‐ clerk who redacted a significant amount of information in the docu‐ tion of the clerk, who has worked under governments from both ments. It was those documents that Mr. Poilievre held up in his dis‐ parties, and has been nothing but an upstanding and well-respected play in front of the press gallery back in August. civil servant. It's completely understandable that Mr. Poilievre is now upset. It's because the Clerk of the Privy Council, who was our topic of Sometimes as elected officials we have to stand back, and realize discussion with this motion, I remind committee members, ordered the effects of the actions that we take. Unfortunately, because Mr. an unprecedented release of cabinet documents as they relate to the Poilievre did not get what he wanted out of the initial request for student service grant. In August the government House leader re‐ documents, he is now willing to go to any length to find a way to leased those documents. I know that my colleague was expecting continue his narrative. full well that in some fantasy scenario we would be completely redacting those documents. That just wasn't the case, however, and We have a subamendment before us that could answer all the this upsets him. questions that all parties have, and because it doesn't fit the narrow partisan interests of the opposition majority, we have yet to reach a We are here today because we have a motion, an amendment and consensus. a subamendment, all of which deal with these documents in ques‐ tion. Part of our discussion has focused on comparing the docu‐ I implore my colleagues to put aside the partisanship, to put aside ments, which Mr. Poilievre does not want to happen because this their personal vendetta against the Prime Minister and his family, to will show it was in fact the law clerk who redacted the documents look at the facts that are clear and surely out there, testimony that more fully and not the public service. He doesn't want the Clerk of has been more than apparent, to vote in favour of this motion, and the Privy Council to testify or any of the deputy ministers to testify do the right thing, allow the clerk to come before us to explain that because their testimony will also support that the public service was nothing nefarious took place, and to finally put this matter to rest open and transparent. once and for all. If we actually had the ability to hear from Mr. Shugart, I'm sure he would tell us the same thing that he has said in testimony previ‐ We have important work to do. We are far behind on our work to ously at other committees and at this committee, that he ordered un‐ conduct pre-budget consultations as mandated in the Standing Or‐ precedented unmasking of cabinet confidences and personal infor‐ ders of the House of Commons. This is the work that our con‐ mation for public release. He would likely attest to the fact that the stituents are expecting us to do. This is the work that will help the minor redactions that were done on cabinet confidence documents economic rebuild for us. This is the work that we were elected to were done because the information was unrelated to the CSSG. He do. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 27

In fact, Mr. Chair, if I could follow-up on that last point, it's so as I said, to undermine public confidence in the institutions of fed‐ critical that this committee think long and hard about the path eral government. ahead. The subamendment sketches out a meaningful way to ad‐ dress exactly what the opposition has been calling for, what Liberal members are more than prepared to get behind in the form of a sub‐ No doubt the rise of social media means that the democracy be‐ amendment, but for some reason they continue to delay. They con‐ fore us has been reduced in many ways to an algorithm. When the tinue to throw up road blocks. Conservatives put forward these sorts of ideas, inevitably these find their way onto Facebook and the like. It doesn't take much. All of a We have something here that's indeed quite reasonable, Mr. sudden, an image develops and someone who is objective and non- Chair, and when you think about the work that could be done right partisan then bears a reputation saying the opposite. now...We could be holding pre-budget consultations. We could be hearing about the best way forward, not only in terms of dealing with the pandemic, but in the economic rebuild that must follow. The way things work now, the person I'm talking about, the Clerk, Mr. Shugart, could be dismissed by Canadians as not being We could be hearing from organizations across the country fo‐ objective. And all of a sudden, the institutions of the land are not cused on the environment, focused on indigenous issues, focused able to serve the public interest. on urban transit, focused on rural issues, focused on all these issues that should be seizing this committee, a committee that is arguably Ms. Jansen is agreeing with me as she continues to follow along, the most important in Ottawa. and I'm seeing that she's deeply amused with the argument, which When the time comes around to deciding committees, every MP says to me that she's in violent agreement with exactly what I'm in the House of Commons wants to serve on the finance committee. putting forward to the committee. I say that, of course, rhetorically, It is a unique role and honour. Instead of doing the work that I ex‐ and I would say to her very respectfully, because I know she's not pected to be doing at this time, and all members around the table going to interrupt me—she's too polite to do that—that I will not expected, we continue to debate these matters when a meaningful interrupt her when she speaks. solution is on the table that opposition parties should get behind. The position of the opposition members on the matter is such I would ask her to carry the message to Mr. Falk, Mr. Poilievre that they have in fact worked to politicize the role of the Clerk of and to other Conservative members of the committee. I see Mr. the Privy Council, the chief public servant in all of Canada and the Kelly has disappeared. Mr. Poilievre is having an influence on him. highest ranking public servant in all of Canada, by suggesting, as Mr. Kelly is usually quite good at staying at committee meetings, they have in previous meetings, time and again.... It hasn't only but he's suddenly gone, and I guess that's the influence of Mr. been once. Poilievre. Oh, there he is. Okay, So Mr. Poilievre has not had a tremendous influence, but there, he's disappeared again. Mr. Kelly ● (30545) is gone. I think each Conservative member.... If I'm going to single any‐ one out, I won't call out Mr. Julian or Mr. Ste-Marie on this, but Not to joke around too much, Mr. Chair, we're all colleagues here Conservative colleagues have suggested that the Clerk of the Privy and we're all striving to find ways to work with one another. If it's Council is somehow controlled by the Prime Minister. They have Ms. Jansen or if it's Mr. Falk, I don't know, but this idea that the politicized his role. The Clerk of the Privy Council is an indepen‐ Clerk of the Privy Council is somehow under the thumb of the dent public servant, full stop. Someone in the form of Mr. Shugart Prime Minister of Canada, please do away with that. It's not accept‐ has served Conservative and Liberal prime ministers, and when able and let's not besmirch the reputations of public servants. these allegations are made, it undermines public confidence in the institutions of the country, not only in the Privy Council, Mr. Chair. In my remarks, Mr. Chair, I think back to what it means to be an These allegations are not just inaccurate, but pushed, and reveal elected member of Parliament and the work that one expects to car‐ in the Conservatives an approach to the public service that we must ry out when here. I've always seen the job of an MP...and granted, fight against, because if you look at the tendency in modern democ‐ I'm still relatively new to the job, five years in now. But I think it's racies, you see a populist right-wing that is rising. Thankfully it fair to say that the job is really two jobs. hasn't hit Canada, but you do see it in other mature democracies, whereby members of the public service are belittled and the end re‐ ● (30550) sult is that citizens lack faith in democracy. I would call my opposi‐ tion colleagues to be more careful, because when you have some‐ one in the form of the Clerk of the Privy Council who has not just There is the constituency role, and there is the role that one has expressed in verbal form but also through a letter to this committee on Parliament Hill. As far as the constituency role goes, it is the a desire to appear to make his case, to answer any questions, and most important element of the job. The assignment to the finance yet we are told by the Conservatives that he cannot do so because committee has allowed for the merging of the two. You can take lo‐ he is somehow being controlled by the Prime Minister, it is a cal concerns and bring them to the level of the finance committee, bizarre argument. It is an argument without any merit, but more even having the privilege of suggesting witnesses from one's own than that, it's not laughable because it has effects, and the effect is, riding. 28 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

You might recall, Mr. Chair, that London-based organizations any Minister regarding the design and creation of the Canada Student Service have been invited a few times over the years to present at the fi‐ Grant, as well as any written correspondence and records of other correspon‐ dence with WE Charity and Me to We from March 2020 be provided to the com‐ nance committee, whether in pre-budget consultations or otherwise. mittee no later than August 8, 2020; that matters of Cabinet Confidence My colleagues have sometimes accused me, jokingly and in good spirits, of talking too much about London, but I will never apolo‐ —Obviously that has been the subject of a lot of our more infor‐ gize for that, Mr. Chair. I will never apologize for making my com‐ mal chats— munity a key agenda item of my work in Parliament. and national security be excluded from the request; and that any redactions nec‐ The point I'm making is that we could be engaged in pre-budget essary, including to protect the privacy of Canadian citizens and permanent resi‐ dents whose names and personal information may be included in the documents, consultations right now. I could be inviting local-based organiza‐ as well as public servants who have been providing assistance on this matter, be tions and stakeholders...and I know that other committee members made by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of would have the same right and privilege to do so. Instead, we con‐ Commons. tinue to be here. We continue to waste time because the opposition does not want to deal with the subamendment in a meaningful way. If we start with the motion, I think the controversy that seems to be the subject of the current piece is the fact that some of the redac‐ I'll leave my comments there, Mr. Chair, because I'm not the sort tions were made by the Clerk of the Privy Council as opposed to of member who wants to occupy all the space here. the law clerk. For weeks, we debated whether cabinet confidences ought to have been redacted by the government or by the law clerk. I see that Mr. Fraser's hand is up. In the spirit of being collegial and the like, he wants to speak, and I think I'll turn it over to him. It's pretty clear, from my initial reading— ● (30555) ● (30600) The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos. The Chair: Mr. Fraser, I hate to interrupt, but I don't want to Next on my list is Mr. Fraser. take away from other committee time. I'm going to interrupt you, To throw in a friendly reminder to the House leadership of all and that will give an opportunity for the various players to find a parties, try to solve this by tomorrow somehow. solution so that we can settle this problem early in the meeting on Thursday, and hopefully meet the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Go ahead, Mr. Fraser. and find a path forward on the pre-budget consultations. Mr. Sean Fraser: Thanks, Mr. Chair. With that, we are suspending. Before I begin, I'm looking at the “raise hand” function. I see that Mr. Poilievre's hand is up as well. I think he preceded me, but Thank you. I'm not sure. [The meeting was suspended at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, November Shall I go ahead? 17, 2020] The Chair: You can do that. I think Mr. Poilievre forgot to take ● (1800) his hand down after he put it up. ______(Pause)______

Mr. Sean Fraser: Sure. That's not problem at all. ● (1530) Where to begin? Before I get into any remarks, I am sincere in [The meeting resumed at 3:30 p.m., Thursday, November 19, saying that I am going to try to fix this. I want a chance to look at 2020] what Mr. Poilievre has put forward. I've had a few conversations with him and others over the past number of weeks. I'd like to get The Chair: We'll call the meeting to order. We're now resuming on with business as much as anybody would. meeting number five of the Standing Committee on Finance.

The reality, though, is that it was probably not on the point of rel‐ Pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on Wednesday, evance, when Mr. Poilievre was making arguments about Canada's September 23, 2020, the committee is meeting virtually— position compared with our global comparators. Much as I dis‐ agreed with just about everything he said, I kind of enjoyed getting Mrs. Tamara Jansen: Point of order, Mr. Chair. Has everybody to hear somebody's perspective on the fiscal track of our country. been sound-checked? I was, and a couple of other people. I'll turn to the subamendment, since that's what we're debating, The Chair: Yes, Mrs. Jansen. I think they were. The only one— and I'll do my best to bring it back to solution-oriented topics as we Hon. Pierre Poilievre: I got a chance— go. The Chair: Yes, your video was off. They thought you were in The original motion that caused so much consternation at this the wilderness somewhere. committee was made pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), and it asked the committee to order that any contracts concluded with WE We'll give you a little check now, Pierre. Charity and Me To We.... Where am I? It reads as follows: all briefing notes, memos and emails, including the contribution agreement that Hon. Pierre Poilievre: I've been here all along. I was just hiding the government and organizations...from senior officials prepared for or sent to from you. That's all. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 29

The Chair: Oh, I can't imagine you in hiding. You just like it out Just one moment, please. front too much. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: It's good to see you, Wayne. I wish we I'm sorry, Pierre. Can I ask for just a point of clarification before were together in person. I continue reading this? I hope my audio here is clear enough for our friends in the tech‐ I thought for some reason that there was an amendment put for‐ nical branch. ward by Mr. Julian, not the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge. Has that been changed? Just to reflect what has actually taken place, I The Chair: Are we okay? want to make sure we're parking the entire debate on the privilege Okay. You're good. motion we've been dealing with.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Excellent. Thanks, Wayne. ● (35135) The Chair: You're always good, I know. You're just better today. The Chair: It was Pat, Sean. Pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on Wednesday, Mr. Sean Fraser: Okay. Thank you. September 23, 2020, the committee is meeting virtually. Today's meeting is taking place by video conference and the proceedings I will continue: ...and that the committee adopt all evidence will be televised and made available on the House of Commons heard in the First Session of the 43rd Parliament during the com‐ website. As usual, for too many meetings now, it's just committee mittee’s study on “Government Spending, WE and the Canada Stu‐ members, so I won't go through the other rules. We all know them; dent Service Grant”; and that the committee order that by Novem‐ they'll be in our heads. ber 24, 2020, the government provide the Law Clerk and Parlia‐ With that, we will try to start where we left off. I know there are mentary Counsel with all documents as originally requested in the some people on the speaking order, but I believe Mr. Fraser and Mr. July 7, 2020 motion moved by the Member for New Westminster- Poilievre, and probably others, were in some discussions on amend‐ Burnaby, without any redaction, omission or exclusion except as ments to the motion that we were batting around the other day, would be justified in sections and subsections 69(1) through 69(3) which wasn't the original motion. (b)(ii) of the Access to Information Act, that the information re‐ main in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and I'll turn it over to Mr. Fraser first and then go to Mr. Poilievre. be used exclusively by him to determine the government’s compli‐ Mr. Sean Fraser: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. ance or non-compliance with the July 7, 2020 motion, and that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Actually, I don't want to lead where I left off. I was about to Commissioner appear no later than November 25, 2020 to discuss make an intervention on the subamendment where we left off, and “cabinet confidence” exclusions to public disclosures, and that the I'm pleased to report that's not where I plan to start. law clerk testify before the committee regarding documents re‐ ceived from the government pursuant to this motion to provide his As you signalled, there have been a couple of conversations on views on the government’s compliance or non-compliance with the the basis of the proposal that Mr. Poilievre put forward. I received July 7 motion. just a few moments ago an email from Mr. Poilievre with some modest tweaks to the last version of the motion that I had discussed As I said, Mr. Chair, it is substantially similar to the version that with him. Mr. Poilievre pitched— Pierre, if I can keep this informal, I think they seem quite minor Mr. Peter Julian: I have a point of order. and fine, despite our point about the Ethics Commissioner, and I think that's an accommodation that we'd be happy to make. Mr. Sean Fraser: —with some accommodations to draw a box around what the parliamentary— Mr. Chair, I just flipped the most recent copy of this to you. I ap‐ preciate that not all committee members will have seen it. It's sub‐ Mr. Peter Julian: I have a point of order. stantially similar. What I propose to do is just read it aloud. I do The Chair: Can we let him finish and then go to the point of or‐ apologize, Mr. Chair. The most recent version that I sent to Mr. der? Poilievre was translated in both official languages, but I don't have the French language for the version that I've just received now. Mr. Peter Julian: No. The point of order is a request that he read it smoothly a second time so that we can track— I'm sorry. I have a little technical issue here. I have too many things popping up on my phone at once, but I'll read this in a mo‐ The Chair: We will get him to read it again. ment. We will let you finish first, Sean, and then come back to read it Pierre, for what it's worth, I'm reading directly from the email slowly again. you sent to me: That the committee temporarily set aside the mo‐ tion relating to the point of privilege put forward by the Member Mr. Sean Fraser: Certainly. Of course, before I finish my minor for Carleton on October 8, 2020, and the subsequent subamend‐ submission and read it again, I would be quite happy to give mem‐ ments moved by the Member for Calgary Rocky Ridge and the bers an opportunity to review it if the clerk could circulate this ver‐ Member for Kingston and the Islands.... sion of it. 30 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

Substantially, I was going to say, it's very similar to Mr. [English] Poilievre's motion yesterday. The only significant change from our The Chair: Yes, I think I had the original motion and there aren't perspective was drawing a bit of a box around what the law clerk many changes to it. will do with the documents, but I think the motion explains it in a rather straightforward way. Maybe we'll suspend for 10 minutes. Mr. Fraser, can you send I will read it once more for the benefit of members. the copy you have to the clerk? Mr. Sean Fraser: I'll send a copy to the clerk of the English ver‐ It reads: That the committee temporarily set aside the motion re‐ sion that I have. I will send a copy of the nearly identical motion lating to the point of privilege put forward by the Member for Car‐ with the changes highlighted so both official languages are there to leton on October 8, 2020, and the subsequent subamendments start. moved by the Member for Calgary Rocky Ridge and the Member for Kingston and the Islands, and that the committee adopt all evi‐ The clerk may have to interpret just a few of the words—Pierre, dence heard in the First Session of the 43rd Parliament during the it's what you've added—and then I'd suggest that we resume from committee’s study on “Government Spending, WE and the Canada this suspension as soon as the clerk circulates the text of the motion Student Service Grant”; and that the committee order that by in both official languages. November 24, 2020, the government provide the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel with all documents as originally requested The Chair: Okay, that's what we will do. We'll suspend— in the July 7, 2020 motion moved by the Member for New West‐ Mrs. Tamara Jansen: I'm sorry; I have one more point of order. minster-Burnaby, without any redaction, omission or exclusion ex‐ I know this is extremely difficult for those who are working in cept as would be justified in sections and subsections 69(1) through French when these kinds of changes are made. The Liberals have 69(3)(b)(ii) of the Access to Information Act, that the information said over and over how committed they are to ensuring that French remain in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel is going to be top of mind. and be used exclusively by him to determine the government’s compliance or non-compliance with the July 7, 2020 motion, and I'm a bit stumped why on earth we are not coming here with that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Conflict of Interest and proper French translation. We saw that already this morning with Ethics Commissioner appear no later than November 25, 2020 to Mr. Thériault in the justice committee. They were trying to force discuss “cabinet confidence” exclusions to public disclosures, and him to vote on an English amendment. that the law clerk testify before the committee regarding documents received from the government pursuant to this motion to provide I wonder if we— his views on the government’s compliance or non-compliance with The Chair: Just to interrupt, Mrs. Jansen, Mr. Fraser has sent the July 7 motion. copies of the full motion in both French and English— Mrs. Tamara Jansen: I have a point of order. It's just a quick question. Mrs. Tamara Jansen: But that's of the original motion, correct? The Chair: Yes, Mrs. Jansen, go ahead. The Chair: No, it's the one that he and Mr. Poilievre were talk‐ ing about. Mr. Poilievre made a couple of changes, adding “compli‐ Mrs. Tamara Jansen: Mr. Fraser read that extremely fast again. ance or non-compliance” in a couple of areas, so it's a small amend‐ I'm wondering how the interpreters are doing because I can hardly ment. I think he also added in the Ethics Commissioner in another imagine that was easy to translate so that anybody would know section of the motion. Most of it is in both official languages. what's going on in French. Mrs. Tamara Jansen: Which I appreciate, yes.... But, again, we The Chair: Mr. Fraser, is it possible to send a copy of that text had the same thing this morning, where they say most of it is in to the clerk? Then the clerk can send it to members, and we will French. “Most” is not the entire thing. take a few minutes to read it. The Chair: What I'm saying is that Mr. Fraser did everything he Mr. Ste-Marie, go ahead. could in both official languages, and then in the discussion that he ● (35140) and Mr. Poilievre had, where they made a little change, that is the only part that is not translated. I don't want the wrong opinion to go [Translation] out on here. It's just a couple of minor changes that were related to Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair. the last-minute discussions. I want to make sure that the final motion will be distributed only Mr. Julian. when it has been translated into French. [Translation] [English] Mr. Peter Julian: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Chair: Could you come at that again, Gabriel, please? Ms. Jansen has just raised an important point. We won't be able [Translation] to discuss the motion until it has been properly translated. That is a Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: I would like the motion to be sent to us principle that we must adhere to. I am making the same request as by email when it has been translated. Ms. Jansen and Mr. Ste‑Marie. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 31

[English] subamendment to the original motion of privilege. Then we can go The Chair: There's no disagreement from me or anyone else on from there. that, Peter. We're going to get that to the clerk with the slight The Chair: That would be one way. The other way would be changes to be amended and put it out. unanimous consent to allow this motion. The other motion would Mr. Poilievre. stay intact, as it is. That's probably where people want to go. [Translation] I have Mr. Fraser, followed by Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Julian. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: I agree with the comments by Ms. Jansen, Mr. Julian and Mr. Ste‑Marie. I would add that Mr. Fraser, go ahead. Mr. Fraser has acted in good faith. His intention was for us to have Mr. Sean Fraser: I don't think this has to be a lengthy interven‐ the document in both official languages before we vote. There was tion. not a lot of time to translate the minor changes. As you suggested, Mr. Chair, we should take 15 minutes or so for I seek the unanimous consent of committee members, pursuant to the interpreters to do a reliable and complete translation and for all your advice, that the motion be moved as it was read out and circu‐ members of the committee to receive the new motion in both offi‐ lated by the clerk. cial languages. We could then move to a vote. Mr. Peter Julian: I'm not prepared to give that. ● (35145) The Chair: Mr. Julian isn't prepared to give that unanimous con‐ [English] sent. That leaves us where we are. The Chair: Okay, that's where we're at. Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Chair, I'd love to hear from Mr. Poilievre. Are there any other comments before we suspend for 15 min‐ I think it would be.... I'd like to hear from Mr. Ste-Marie as well. utes? We will reconvene at five o'clock, Ottawa time. The Chair: Mr. Poilievre, do you want to speak? Then it will be Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Fraser had his Mr. Ste-Marie, and back to Mr. Julian. hand up. The Chair: I don't have you all in front of me, so I can't see you. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: This compromise is a step forward. It's imperfect and incomplete, but it is a step in the right direction. Mr. Fraser, did you want in? Mr. Sean Fraser: Certainly, Mr. Chair. There are about a thousand redactions and exclusions in the bun‐ dle the government handed this committee. This motion would re‐ For the sake of absolute clarity, all members of our caucus are in quire the government to hand over, unredacted and unexcluded, complete agreement with all of the points made. For the record, the about 54% or 55% of that material. We would be removing black minor changes are ones that came in just minutes before. They are ink from about half of the pages that are currently covered up. quite minor. I think it is fair and essential that we have a full trans‐ lation for members in the language of their choice. The motion requires the government, basically, to give over ev‐ erything except that which is excluded or redacted under section 69 With that on the record, we could move forward with the suspen‐ of the Access to Information Act, which deals with cabinet secrets. sion, so we can deal with the translation, and reconvene as soon as If you take that bundle of documents, everything that isn't stamped the clerk sends the full text of the motion in both official languages. with justification under section 69 must be given, unredacted, to the That would be the appropriate next step. law clerk to read. The Chair: That sounds good to me. That is the strict interpretation that I impose on this motion. If The meeting is suspended for 15 minutes. that is not honoured, I reserve the right to reintroduce my point of ● (1545) privilege and resume talks on it. ______(Pause)______

● (1600) Again, Mr. Fraser has committed to me, by virtue of this motion, that every single redaction or exclusion except those justified under The Chair: We shall reconvene. section 69 will be removed, so that the documents can be handed We'll go to a discussion on this. I know we're batting it around over to the law clerk for his perusal. He will be able, then, to testify out of procedural rules. If we are agreed on going forward, we will before the committee as to whether the government is in compli‐ have to have unanimous consent to basically move this motion and ance with Mr. Julian's original motion of July 7. do what we want to do with this motion. Once we deal with that, then we can go to whatever we want to do. Mr. Fraser, do you agree with that statement? Mr. Julian. ● (35205) Mr. Peter Julian: Actually, I don't think it's that complicated. If The Chair: I'll come back to Mr. Fraser after I go to Mr. Ste- the subamendment is withdrawn, then the motion could be put as a Marie and Mr. Julian. 32 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

[Translation] uments that the government gave to this committee will be handed Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: It seems like a reasonable compromise, over to the law clerk unredacted except for those marked under sec‐ for the same reasons as those Mr. Poilievre stated. tion 69 of the Access to Information Act as cabinet secrets? [English] Mr. Sean Fraser: I think the motion asks for that. One of the things I want to be careful about is that.... The committee is asking The Chair: Mr. Julian, go ahead. for things. The government is going to produce a response to the Mr. Peter Julian: I yield to Mr. Fraser to respond to Mr. motion, and I'm not speaking for what the government is going to Poilievre's question and reserve the right to come back. do. The Chair: Okay. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Well, yes, you are. You're the parliamen‐ tary secretary, so you're a member of the executive. That's what Go ahead, Mr. Fraser. you're doing here, so you are speaking for the government. Mr. Sean Fraser: I think the goal, if I can put it even more sim‐ Mr. Sean Fraser: I'm not speaking to the government's response ply, is to give everything from the original motion to the law clerk to the motion. I haven't seen what the government has not yet done. and have the law clerk conduct an assessment as to whether the That's my only concern here, Pierre. government is in compliance, and then report to this committee where we can ask questions. ● (35210) Hon. Pierre Poilievre: I'm sorry, just to clarify—because I think Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Have you spoken to the government that's probably where you were leaving a little bit of ambiguity—of about this? the original bundle that the government handed over to the commit‐ Mr. Sean Fraser: I've spoken to members of our— tee, everything in that bundle will be given to the law clerk unredacted and unexcluded except that which is currently marked Hon. Pierre Poilievre: So, you know what their intentions are. by section 69. Mr. Sean Fraser: I don't think that anybody is trying to be tricky here. Is that correct, Mr. Fraser? Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Okay, so I'll just ask you one more time, Mr. Sean Fraser: I think the only things that we're looking to then. protect under section 69 are the cabinet confidences, and we have agreed, with the exception of what's been handed over that would There's a bundle of documents that the committee got, and this normally be subject to cabinet confidences, that's not going to the motion will have the effect of having the government give the law law clerk. clerk all those documents that were in that bundle unredacted and unexcluded, with the exception of those excluded or redacted on Everything else that we've been looking for would be going to the grounds of section 69 of the Access to Information Act. Is that the law clerk—not to share with the committee—for him to look at, correct? conduct an assessment of, and then come back to the committee so we can ask if the government has done what they've said they were The Chair: Let's give some time for people to think here. going to do or what the committee has asked them to do. Just on your point, Pierre, there's a bundle of documents that Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Just to clarify, in the bundle that the gov‐ went to the law clerk at the committee's request. We never got ernment handed over to the committee, that bundle will be given them, and then we got them after the law clerk, just to be clear. over to the law clerk with no redactions or exclusions except those justified under section 69 of the Access to Information Act. Is that Mr. Fraser. correct? Mr. Sean Fraser: Look, Pierre, the only reservation I have is Mr. Sean Fraser: Yes. I think the motion says that the redactions that we kind of went back and forth on the language of it. The gov‐ are only for cabinet confidence. That's explicit in the motion, is it ernment is going to produce this, and the law clerk is going to say, not? yes, you complied or didn't comply. I think if we fail as a govern‐ ment to satisfy what you've asked for, the motion protects your Hon. Pierre Poilievre: It is, but again, the bundle of documents right to go immediately back to your privilege motion. that the government gave the committee in response to Mr. Julian's July 7 motion will be handed over to the law clerk, and it will have I only hesitate because it's not going to be me who is saying, here no exclusions or redactions except those justified under section 69. are the documents that are being produced. I don't want to give you Is that right? information that I don't have, based on my speculation. Mr. Sean Fraser: I want to be careful, because.... I'm comfort‐ Hon. Pierre Poilievre: But it's not speculation. You wouldn't be able with the language that you've pitched to me— supporting this motion if you didn't think the government was go‐ Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Sorry, you're getting a little bit sneaky ing to comply with it. here. Tell me the answer to the question. Mr. Sean Fraser: I'm satisfied with the motion. I think the gov‐ Mr. Sean Fraser: Look, I'm not trying to be sneaky. I think it ernment will comply with it. was your motion. I plan to support it. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Okay. Good. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Is that your interpretation, though? I just asked it three times now. Is that your interpretation, that all the doc‐ Mr. Sean Fraser: I will ask them to comply with it. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 33

Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Right. And your intention here is that all I only hesitate, as you pointed out, because.... The government is redactions and exclusions, other than those justified under section going to respond to this motion. Then the law clerk will come and 69 of the Access to Information Act, will be removed in the sub‐ say whether they've satisfied the motion or not. If the law clerk says mission that the government makes to the parliamentary law clerk, no, the motion we've discussed today does not preclude us from im‐ yes or no? mediately coming back to the debate we've been having over the past number of weeks. Mr. Sean Fraser: Pierre, I feel like you're grilling me as the wit‐ ness who's producing these documents. I think that's the whole pur‐ Mr. Peter Julian: I'm not asking that. I'm saying that the reason pose of having the law clerk come, to tell us if the government has is very clearly cabinet confidences, but you are unable to—and I complied. I'm comfortable with the motion that you sent to me be‐ understand this completely—assure us 100% that the pages that fore this meeting. I would like to let the motion dictate that, not to were excluded last time under cabinet confidences will be the only have me make representations on behalf of someone else who's go‐ pages excluded this time. ing to be complying with this motion. Mr. Sean Fraser: I think the motion tries to cure this very issue. The Chair: The motion and some late amendments to it, I might add.... I don't want to stick my neck out on something that a different Mr. Julian. person is going to respond to. The protection that we baked into this suggested motion was to have the law clerk come and testify Mr. Peter Julian: This is actually a key question, Mr. Fraser. I about his review of the documents and to say whether the govern‐ understand you can't necessarily reply for the government, but it al‐ ment satisfied the original motion or not. Presumably, if they say most sounds like what will happen, or what could happen, is that no, we're back where we are. If they say yes, it's satisfied, I would there will be a new list of pages of cabinet confidences that are ex‐ assume the privilege point would disappear. cluded from a new batch. I don't know how else to solve this problem, other than the lan‐ The question Mr. Poilievre asked was very specific. On the 5,000 guage that I thought we were on the verge of agreeing to. If you're pages that we got, some of them excluded certain pages from cabi‐ not comfortable with the language, then I guess we'll go back to the net confidences. Now you're saying that there will be a new batch drawing board. prepared. Ultimately, it's quite possible, because you're not the one doing the redaction, that we may find a different list of cabinet con‐ I feel like I've said what my understanding of it is. We should see fidences—in other words, different pages excluded. if the committee has the will to support it. This is really the crux of this particular motion. It only works if The Chair: Just so we're all clear, if what is done here doesn't it's the same 5,000 pages with the same cabinet exclusions. It meet with the law clerk's approval, then we go back to the original doesn't work at all if we're talking about a new mix of papers. From motion, amendment and subamendment. Is that correct? Is that the what I gather from your responses.... You're honest; you're saying protection there for committee members who've had this concern in you can't guarantee that. My concern is that we're potentially hav‐ the first place? I want to make sure that for those who had con‐ ing the documents redacted a second time, with potentially pages cerns, the protection is there to go back to the original motion added to the cabinet confidences that were excluded the first time. should the law clerk decide that's not the case. That was the direct question that Mr. Poilievre asked that you can't answer. I'm not criticizing you for that. You're being honest. We have Mrs. Jansen and Ms. Dzerowicz. But I am worried about that fact. I think that's the crux of the con‐ Mrs. Tamara Jansen: I'm just wondering if Mr. Fraser is willing cern around this motion. If we're talking about two different piles of to use the term “same batch” when he's explaining to us what docu‐ paper, we're no further ahead in terms of getting to the bottom of ments this includes. Are you willing to actually use that terminolo‐ what we requested in July. gy? It will be the same batch of documents that were sent the first ● (35215) time. The Chair: Mr. Fraser, I'm just reading this motion over again. Mr. Sean Fraser: I assume we're dealing with the same batch of documents. Mr. Julian, if you read the motion closely, I don't think the gov‐ ernment can send a different batch of documents. We're really deal‐ Mrs. Tamara Jansen: Assuming is never a good thing, especial‐ ing with the same documents related to the motion. ly when you're doing something this legal. I'm asking if you are willing to use the words “same batch”. Mr. Fraser. Mr. Sean Fraser: I'm not fussy about it. The language came Mr. Sean Fraser: Thank you. from Pierre. I don't have problems with that. My reservation— Yes, Peter, I don't think that's the case. In fact, part of the motion Mrs. Tamara Jansen: Are you willing to use the words “same brings the Clerk of the Privy Council here to explain why the par‐ batch”, then? That's the question. You are willing to say that. ticular redactions were made. I don't anticipate that this motion cre‐ ates wiggle room for the government to use a different reason for Mr. Sean Fraser: I've just indicated that I am and that I think it's the redactions than was given before. all the same documents. 34 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

My only reservation is that it's not me who is going to be re‐ I expect that the government will satisfy the motion. If it doesn't, sponding to this motion, so I can't predict what the exact response I think the safety valve that is baked into this motion is that we im‐ will be. mediately come back to the point of privilege. ● (35220) Hon. Pierre Poilievre: I think I have a solution, and I'd be curi‐ Mrs. Tamara Jansen: You are clear that what this motion is ous as to how Mr. Julian, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Ste-Marie and whoever talking about is the exact same batch of documents as the previous. else would comment on this. We could simply say “including all documents the government provided the law clerk in August”. Mr. Sean Fraser: I expect that the motion is dealing with the same batch of documents. I don't want to just repeat my reserva‐ It would then read, “that the committee order that by November tion. I think you know what it is. 24, 2020, the Government provide the Law Clerk and Parliamen‐ The Chair: Ms. Dzerowicz. tary Counsel with all documents as originally requested in the July 7, 2020 motion moved by the Member for New Westminster-Burn‐ Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: In response to what you said, Mr. Chair, if aby, including all documents the government provided the Law for some reason those who feel that...once the law clerk comes, we Clerk in August, without any redaction, omission or exclusion ex‐ come back to this motion, amendment and subamendment. cept as would be justified in sections and subsections 69(1) through I also want to point out that it's fairly quick. It's November 24, 69(3)(b)(ii) of the Access to Information Act”. which is next Tuesday, and before November 25. It's actually being That would just clarify that the entire bundle is coming back, this done very quickly and as expeditiously as possible. I think if we time with all of the redactions removed except for those justified pass this today, we can then move to submit those documents im‐ under section 69. mediately to the law clerk and have the law clerk come before us before the 25th, which is next Wednesday. We could then just pro‐ Mr. Sean Fraser: Pierre, can you just tell me what words you're ceed. adding? You read a lot, and I think most of that is already in the motion. I am just not clear on which part of what you said was dif‐ I know we all want to get to pre-budget consultations. I think Mr. ferent from the existing motion. Fraser has done an outstanding job in explaining what was agreed to with the motion. ● (35225) The Chair: Mr. Ste-Marie. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: After the word “Burnaby”, you would put—and you can do this in brackets or you can put it within two [Translation] commas—“including all documents the government provided the Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Law Clerk in August”. I still agree with the arguments that Ms. Dzerowicz is making. The Chair: What I would suggest, so that you're not in an im‐ There is a risk. Are we, or are we not, talking about the same batch possible position, Mr. Fraser, is that we maybe suspend for another of documents? The committee's calendar shows that our next meet‐ 15 minutes if we're all clear on that. Is everyone okay with that? ing will be next Tuesday. That is when we will know. Mr. Sean Fraser: Just before we do, Pierre, can you just repeat Now I would like to ask Mr. Fraser a question. those words so I know exactly what I'm dealing with here? As Mr. Poilievre said, you are a parliamentary secretary. When Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Yes. It would be after “the member for you speak, you do so on behalf of the government. I understand that New Westminster-Burnaby” and would read “including all the doc‐ you cannot tell us at the moment whether or not this is the same uments that the government provided the law clerk in August” and batch of documents. But how long would it take you to send a text then you would continue with “without any redaction, omission, or to Mr. Rodriguez about this, or to go and see somebody from the exclusion”. government who could give us an unambiguous answer? If we are It would now read: talking about five or 10 minutes, I feel that it's worth it. It could calm all the apprehensions that committee members are feeling. We That the committee temporarily set aside the motion relating to the Point of Priv‐ ilege put forward for the Member for Carlton on October 8, 2020, and the subse‐ could then continue our work. quent sub-amendments moved by the Member for Calgary Rocky Ridge and the [English] Member for Kingston and the Islands, and that the Committee adopt all evidence heard in the First Session of the 43[rd] Parliament during the committee's study Mr. Sean Fraser: Mr. Chair, just to simplify this, I think we're on “Government Spending, WE and the Canada Student Service Grant”; and asking for the same batch of documents subject to the conditions that the committee order that by November 24, 2020, the Government provide the Parliamentary Law Clerk with all documents as originally requested in the we've laid out in the motion we've discussed. July 7, 2020 motion moved by the Member for New Westminster-Burnaby, in‐ cluding all documents the Government provided the Law Clerk, without any One of the issues I have, Gabriel, is that there are different batch‐ redaction, omission, or exclusion except as would be justified in sections and es of documents within the batch, if you'll pardon me, and the cus‐ subsections 69(1) through 69(3)(b)(ii) of the Access to Information Act.... todian of each of those is a different ministry. Each of those min‐ istries will have to respond to the motion for the documents that are And rest would continue completely unchanged. within its custody. I'm not trying to be tricky. I don't want to start Mr. Sean Fraser: Okay. speaking for the person who is going to be responding and provid‐ ing these documents in accordance with the motion. Can you give me a few minutes to look at this? November 5, 2020 FINA-05 35

Mr. Peter Julian: On a point of order, Mr. Chair— ● (35230) The Chair: Yes, Mr. Julian. Mr. Sean Fraser: Mr. Chair, are we going to briefly suspend so Mr. Peter Julian: —I would just add that it should be “as was we can review what the clerk circulates? originally justified in sections” instead of “as would be justified in The Chair: We'll have the clerk send out the information, if she sections”. could, in both languages. The Chair: Where do you see that? We'll suspend— Mr. Peter Julian: What we're talking about is that it's about the same documents that were excluded as a result of cabinet confi‐ Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Madam Clerk, my staff will be sending dences “as was...justified”. you an email as well, just so you that have my spoken words in writing. The Chair: Just hold on. Where in the motion are you referring to that, Peter? Thank you. Mr. Peter Julian: It's as we get to the exclusion. I'm sorry. I The Chair: All right. We'll suspend for 15 minutes. shouldn't have shut that window. The Chair: I like dealing with paper, not these units, to be hon‐ Hopefully, we can get back to this, because we're going to run in‐ est. to another committee as well. Mr. Sean Fraser: Yes, I know. This meeting is suspended. Mr. Peter Julian: It's “as was justified originally by sec‐ ● (1630) tions...69(1) through 69(3)(b)(ii) of the Access to Information Act”. ______(Pause)______

The Chair: It's at “as would be justified”. ● (1645) Mr. Peter Julian: It is “was justified”, right? We're talking about The Chair: We shall reconvene. the same— The Chair: You're saying to change “would be” to “was”? I believe all members have received a copy of the two amend‐ ments in both official languages. Mr. Peter Julian: Yes, to “as was justified originally”. I think the order then becomes very clear, both in terms of the original pile We'll go to, Mr. Fraser. of documents but also the original exclusions on the basis of cabi‐ net confidence. That certainly would make it very clear, I think, on Mr. Sean Fraser: Could we ask that the clerk read the motion? both counts. The Chair: Can you read the motion in full, Madam Clerk? The Chair: The change would be, then, with what Pierre put in and then “without any redaction, omission or exclusion, except as [Translation] was justified in sections...”. Is that right? The Clerk: Mr. Peter Julian: Yes, “as was originally justified”. It's the first That the committee temporarily set aside the motion relating to the point of privi‐ pile of paper. lege put forward by the Member for Carleton on October 8, 2020, and the subsequent subamendments moved by the Member for Calgary Rocky Ridge and the Member for The Chair: Okay. Kingston and the Islands, and that the Committee adopt all evidence heard in the First Session of the 43rd Parliament during the committee’s study on “Government Spend‐ Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Sean, I just want to make sure of this. I ing, WE and the Canada Student Service Grant”; and that the committee order that by know that I read it out slowly and meticulously, but I just want to November 24, 2020, the Government provide the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Coun‐ make sure that we're all leaving with the same understanding. sel with all documents as originally requested in the July 7, 2020 motion moved by the Member for New Westminster-Burnaby, including all documents the government pro‐ What do you have as wording, then, Sean? vided the Law Clerk in August, without any redaction, omission or exclusion except as was justified originally in sections and subsections 69(1) through 69(3)(b)(ii) of the Mr. Sean Fraser: I was actually just going to ask, because I got Access to Information Act, that the information remain in the Office of the Law Clerk distracted when Peter made his submission, although I don't think and Parliamentary Counsel and be used exclusively by him to determine the govern‐ it's problematic. ment’s compliance or non-compliance with the July 7, 2020 motion, and that the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner appear no Is it possible for the clerk to resend to committee members the later than November 25, 2020 to discuss “cabinet confidence” exclusions to public dis‐ closures, and that the Law Clerk testify before the committee regarding documents re‐ full body with both Pierre's and Peter's suggested changes? ceived from the government pursuant to this motion to provide his views on the gov‐ The Chair: Do you have that, Madam Clerk? ernment’s compliance with the July 7, 2020 motion. Yes, the clerk will send that. ● (35250) [Translation] [English] Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: I would also ask that it be in both offi‐ The Chair: You have heard the motion. cial languages. Mr. Sean Fraser: We've talked this one through, Mr. Chair, I'm [English] ready for a vote. The Chair: Yes. That's a good point, Gabriel. The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to go with this motion? 36 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

Mr. Peter Julian: I'd love to just hear from Mr. Poilievre and [Translation] Monsieur Ste-Marie to be certain. Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: The clerk has the motion in both official The Chair: Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Ste-Marie, are you okay with languages. this motion for unanimous consent? I assume if you're with unani‐ [English] mous consent, you're okay with it. I will have the clerk send it to you. It's already been submitted in Hon. Pierre Poilievre: I think this is a step forward and a signif‐ both languages, of course. icant improvement that will also let us get on to the committee's business. I will read it out. I think this is the best we can do for now. Do you want me to wait until everybody has received it? I could The Chair: Mr. Ste-Marie. wait a minute. The Chair: I think you can read it. It is not substantially [Translation] changed from the other. Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: Yes, me too. It's an acceptable compro‐ ● (35255) mise. Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: The motion reads: I would like to add one new amendment. No, just kidding, I'm That, pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 83.1, the Standing Commit‐ ready to vote. tee on Finance begins the Pre-Budget Consultations 2021 on Thursday, Novem‐ ber 26, 2020, and that [English] a) the Deputy Prime Minister and departmental officials appear before the com‐ The Chair: You're a good man, Gabriel. mittee; b) the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the first Mr. Julian. session of the 43rd Parliament on pre-budget consultations be taken into consid‐ eration by the committee in the current session; Mr. Sean Fraser: Our committee is funny in both official lan‐ c) the committee allow witnesses to change their testimony if they feel so guages. obliged based on the rapidly evolving situation around COVID-19; Mr. Peter Julian: It certainly is. d) each party submit a preliminary witness list no later than 6:00 p.m. on Mon‐ day, November 23, 2020; I'm reassured by the modifications that have just been accepted, e) each party submit a final witness list no later than 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, so I'm prepared to give consent as well. November 25, 2020; and f) the committee request permission from the House to table its report on pre- The Chair: Okay. We have unanimous consent to deal with the budget consultations no later than the week of February 1, 2021. motion. That is the motion. Okay then, all those in the favour of the motion? I'll just mention one more thing, Mr. Chair. You had very kindly Madam Clerk. mentioned at the last meeting that you had checked with the clerk The Clerk: Do you want a recorded division? about the availability of the rooms and there is a possibility for us to be meeting the week of December 11 or maybe December 14, I The Chair: Yes, we'd better go with a recorded division. believe. That would allow us to conduct a certain number of pre- (Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0) budget consultations and would actually force us, in terms of time‐ lines, to push out the delivery of the report until the first week of The Chair: Thank you all. February at the earliest. Ms. Dzerowicz, your motion is next, please. I've encompassed what you had suggested from the last meeting in the dates I've proposed in this motion. Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Oh, my goodness, I just want to say this is a momentous moment. The Chair: It's on the floor. I would say, though, that it's some‐ thing that all parties would likely talk to their whips or House lead‐ Mr. (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): I'm ers about. If we were to be able to meet the week of December 14, glad I could be here for the beginning and the end. if we could take four or five days there and meet three hours a day, Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Mr. Chair, I don't know what the proper we could get through 50 or 60 witnesses, but we couldn't do that, I way of doing this is. don't believe. I'm not a hundred percent sure on this. I do think we would need a motion of the House to.... I believe committees can I would like to move a motion to start our pre-budget consulta‐ only meet virtually until December 11. You might be more aware of tions. I can read it out. It is exactly the same motion that was intro‐ this than me, Peter. The clerk is shaking her head yes. For us to be duced on October 8, other than the dates being updated. able to meet virtually and do that the week of December 14, we would need permission of the House or the authority of the House Do you need a copy of it, Mr. Julian? in order to meet virtually. For everything to fall into place, that Mr. Peter Julian: That would be very helpful. would have to happen. Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz. Peter, do you have anything you want to add? November 5, 2020 FINA-05 37

Mr. Peter Julian: Yes, you're absolutely right, Mr. Chair. I think Finance hasn't been to committee yet, we should set aside probably those discussions now about meeting virtually beyond December a minimum of two to three hours with the Finance Minister. 11 are starting, but I'm not sure they'll be concluded in the next few days. As far as how we handle the rest of this meeting, I wonder...if we're operating under the rubric of debate on this motion, I don't I do agree with you that there are a couple of motions that have know if it's easier if we simply pass the motion, let it come to a to go through the House on this, so it's best for us to consult with vote, and devote the rest of the meeting to committee business. I'm our folks, our whips and our House leaders in each of the parties trying to figure out how to make this go smoothly. before we come back to discussions Tuesday. The minister and the Bank of Canada are critical top priority wit‐ I'd also say that I think it's probably worthwhile over the next nesses we need to hear. half hour to talk in principle about this approach, and I have some The Chair: We can deal with the motion at any point in time, if comments I'd like to make about that aside from the technical stuff. there's agreement to do that. The Chair: Yes, that's not a problem. It's on the floor. I think key What the motion sets out is for parties to have their initial list at the moment is bringing forward the submissions from the previ‐ this Friday, is that correct? ous parliament. I think any number of organizations, everything from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to others, certainly want Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: The initial list is Monday at 6 p.m. their submissions to be considered as part of the pre-budget consul‐ The Chair: The initial list is Monday, and the final prioritized tations. Whether we get to many witnesses or not.... There are 793 list is on— of them, so we need to be able to bring them forward. We would Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Wednesday at 6 p.m. need to hear from the Finance minister for sure. We have to get that done. The Chair: The clerk can work from number one on down, based on proportionality, because if we're in a very short and tight The floor is open for any concerns or ideas. timeframe, we're going to have to get some pretty critical witnesses in pretty fast. Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Kelly and then Mr. Julian. Mr. Julian, go ahead. ● (35300) Mr. Peter Julian: There's another scenario that doesn't require a Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. number of unanimous consent motions. We've received about I just wanted to point out a few other things. One is the reason I 900— had put it in terms of beginning November 26 is.... In addition to The Chair: 793. the fact that we just want to release the documents to the commit‐ Mr. Peter Julian: Sorry, 793 different submissions. To have the tee, that's one I thought was important, and you mentioned that. analyst begin to prepare the pre-budget report, that gives us over Two, the reason I mentioned that we start on Thursday, November the next three weeks the chance to hear from the Finance Minister 26 is that I want to make sure that the motion that we have just and the Bank of Canada. We'll also be hearing from the Privy adopted formally has time to be able to.... We basically have the Council clerk, the law clerk and the Ethics Commissioner. At the next meeting, which is on the 24th, taken, so that's the reason for same time, we'll need a number of committee meetings to finalize the 26th. the pre-budget report. In terms of the witness list, to me it's just kind of as soon as pos‐ That's an alternative scenario that is legitimate, as well, that al‐ sible, but there's flexibility around those dates. I just want to point lows us to meet the original House deadline without the unanimous out that in f) it says “...permission from the House to table its report consent required to extend the deadline. It gets the report in from on pre-budget consultations no later than the week of February 1”. everybody who has been providing that information to us, 793 wit‐ That means, if there's no agreement and we have to submit it before nesses, and we could certainly remind people to provide us with December 11.... I'm not sure if that's even possible and what we their submissions. would be able to do before then, but it doesn't preclude that happen‐ ing in December if it has to happen that early. It allows us to meet the deadline in a way that prioritizes the Fi‐ nance Minister, Bank of Canada, and is compliant with the motion Anyway, those are my comments. we've just adopted. The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Kelly, before I get to you, I forgot to men‐ I certainly will consult on Ms. Dzerowicz's motion, but it's tion that we weren't able to hear from the Governor of the Bank of worthwhile taking a few minutes to look at alternatives. That's what Canada, and he and the deputy governor can come on November I put forward as an alternative. It allows us to do everything that we 26, which just throws another little wrench into the ointment. In have to do based on the submissions we've already received, 800 or any event, for pre-budget consultations, we need to hear from the so. Governor of the Bank of Canada anyway, given the world situation. I'm not sure it's realistic for us to be.... We're going to be doing Go ahead, Mr. Kelly. all this anyhow. I gather we will be having a week of hearings prior Mr. Pat Kelly: The Bank of Canada will be a critical witness, as to Christmas, and then perhaps a week of meetings in January to fi‐ will be the Minister of Finance. Recognizing that the Minister of nalize the report. 38 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

It's all very rushed. I'm not sure there's a value-added to that Ted, did you want in to speak? I see you looking hard into the when we have a three week period where we can hear witnesses, camera there. prepare and discuss, pass the report, and meet the deadlines that the Standing Order has set. Mr. (Provencher, CPC): No, I'm good. I'm just very attentive. Thank you for noticing. ● (35305) The Chair: Do I have anybody else on the list to throw into this The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Falk. discussion? Mr. Julian. I don't think Ms. Dzerowicz's motion compromises the idea...if we decide to table the pre-budget report in December. I don't even ● (35310) know if it's possible for the Library to do that. That's another angle. Mr. Peter Julian: I'm not prepared to vote on this now. If I I think the other problem we have is that normally this commit‐ wanted to sort of change the perspective, I could offer an amend‐ tee...because we'd be on the road and we could meet for five days, ment that would then take the alternative timeline I've been talking we could meet for sometimes six and seven hours. We are limited about of preparing a report for the date we have in December. to two meetings of two hours per week until the place adjourns on December 11, I think. That's the other problem we're up against. I think I'm more interested in hearing from members about that I've already asked the Library of Parliament, and they are working alternative timeline, allowing us, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, to on a summary of those briefs, so that's already in progress. table all of our COVID evidence, to build on the 793 submissions I think the other thing we may need to consider is there was...al‐ we've received in pre-budget, and to have the Bank of Canada, the though it was under a different topic—it was under the COVID-19 finance minister...and at the same time meet with the Privy Council submissions when we did that review—we had about 300 witness‐ clerk and with the Ethics Commissioner, as we've just stipulated in es; it was close to 270 I think. There were some good recommenda‐ our motion, without presuming that there's an acceptance in the tions in those submissions as well, and the Library of Parliament House for both extending our deadline and also meeting virtually. has done a comprehensive summary of them. I guess we'll probably also need a motion to go forward on that. If we don't have acceptance on meeting virtually, that means we have members of Parliament coming back to Ottawa before Christ‐ We might want to think of that, because those could be consid‐ mas, at a time when we have very high transmission. I'm not sure ered, for us as members at least, as part of the recommendations to that's wise. There are so many pieces in place, I don't think it's wise be considered in the final package. We don't have that in the mo‐ for us to vote right away. I think it's more of an informal exchange tion. However, I think those witnesses came forward in good faith. to find out how people feel about an alternative pre-budget report Although it was not on pre-budget, it was on COVID-19, it very that builds on the work we've already done and the submissions much relates to the issue of where we are. I think we probably need we've already received and that allows us a different road map over to add that in a motion, that the evidence for whatever the name of the next three weeks. the subject title we were doing—COVID-19—should also be brought forward from the last Parliament and considered as part of The Chair: I've got Ms. Dzerowicz next, and others might come the pre-budget consultations. in.

That's where we're at now. I would just say, though, I don't think Ms. Dzerowicz's motion Could we add an amendment to that effect so we deal with that precludes that point. as well? Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Exactly. That's what I was going to say. Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: I'd suggest that we make an addition after (b). Paragraph (b) reads, “the evidence and documentation received The Chair: My only concern is that if we don't move on this by the committee during the first session of the 43rd Parliament on motion today, we've got to go through these 793 briefs and I want pre-budget consultations be taken into consideration”. Then para‐ to start to see them. graph (c) currently says, “the committee allow witnesses to change their testimony”, which refers to (b). I think (c) could also say “the Ms. Dzerowicz. evidence and documentation received by the committee during the first session of the 43rd Parliament on”— Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Mr. Chair, I have to confess that I don't completely understand what Mr. Julian has proposed, but I think it's The Chair: We'll get the right title of it. basically that if we still have to submit a report on December 11 Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: —“COVID-related”—I don't know how and we're not going to meet after that, then we should get the sub‐ to say that—“be taken into consideration by the committee in the missions, have the research team start putting together some current session.” thoughts on that, and then have meetings with the Deputy Prime The Chair: Okay, that sounds good. Minister, departmental officials, and various other people. Nothing in my motion actually precludes that from happening. The last The motion is on the floor. Is there any further discussion on the thing it basically says is that the report will be tabled no later than motion? the week of February 1. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 39

Also, I just sent an updated version in both official languages to I have no problem at all with the rest, and I certainly understand include that paragraph, which basically says, “the evidence and Ms. Dzerowicz's proposal. I think there are a couple of doors and I documentation received by the committee during the first session of think we're closing them if we have (g) as part of the motion, but if the 43rd Parliament on COVID-19 consultations be taken into con‐ she'll accept taking that out temporarily and we come back to it sideration by this committee in the current session”. That text is next week, then I would be much more at ease and we could just with the clerk right now, and it's the only thing that's been added. get moving. I would propose that we vote on this today, because we have to get going. Let's schedule next Thursday, and if we have the gover‐ The Chair: Mr. Poilievre. nor next Thursday, then maybe we can have him for maybe the first hour and a half, and then maybe government officials in the second Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Listen, I think we can address both con‐ half, and then the Deputy Prime Minister the following week. cerns. The concern that we get down to business is a legitimate one, Maybe we can start with the Deputy Prime Minister for an hour and but so is Peter's concern that we line up our work schedule with the continue with her the following Tuesday, but I would say, let's get House's plans and give all members the chance to consider the lo‐ going. gistics of this proposal. I think we can achieve all of that. Then there's also the release of the documents. We need to start reading these things, so it would be really good for us to have a What I would suggest is that we simply get started with the sense about what's been submitted and then start thinking about our Deputy Prime Minister and departmental officials and the Governor witness list and if we have only have, say three sessions, who we of the Bank of Canada—those should be our next two separate like to have before us and if there are going to be more sessions, meetings—and that we task the subcommittee to work out all of the who would be in those additional sessions. details on the plan for the pre-budget consultation and come back to our next meeting with a consensus. That way we can dot all our i's This motion allows us to get going on that work, whether it's and cross all our t's without any delay, because we'll use the interim with the option that I've proposed, which our chair has suggested period to hear from the finance minister and the Governor of the might work, or whether it's the alternative that Mr. Julian has pro‐ Bank of Canada. That gives us the chance to work through this and posed. I don't think that precludes it at all. get it right without having any delay. That's my first point. The Chair: We do have to deal with the items in the previous motion we just passed, so that will have to be scheduled in too. My second point is that we need the finance minister to be here Mr. Julian. for three hours. We need the Governor of the Bank of Canada to be Mr. Peter Julian: Yes, as a friendly amendment, would Ms. before the committee for a separate three hours. There's been so lit‐ Dzerowicz be prepared to strike or suspend paragraph (f) where we tle committee scrutiny of governmental decisions because of the would go to the House for what is an extension? We could certainly way that the last five or six weeks have unfolded. We need an ex‐ come back to that. I would like the opportunity to consult, of tra-long testimony so that we can address the minister and the Gov‐ course, so if we're voting on the other components and not on (f), ernor of the Bank of Canada on the enormous public policy devel‐ I'd feel more comfortable. opments that have been happening without any scrutiny.

● (35315) The Chair: Okay. The Chair: Could somebody read (f).

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: It's actually the new (g) because I have I can tell you that I went up the avenue on the three-hour busi‐ added a new paragraph, Mr. Julian, that the evidence and documen‐ ness, and I know that's impossible because for us as a finance com‐ tation received by the committee during the first session of the 43rd mittee what works well is the three-hour meeting where you can Parliament on COVID-19 consultations be taken into consideration. have six witnesses per hour and a half. That has not proven to be So it's now the new (g). possible with the structure here with Zoom and where all the whips What the (g) says is the committee request permission from the and House leaders have agreed to committee time frames. House to table its report on prebudget consultations no later than the week of February 1, 2021. The best we can do on anything, I'm told, until December 11, is The Chair: You're asking for a friendly amendment to take that two hours, no matter what. We don't even have a say in that. That's out. What are the implications of taking that out, though, Peter? the problem. Mr. Peter Julian: We can come back to it next week. The impli‐ cation is that right now, if we pass the motion with that, then we're Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Well, that's unacceptable. I don't under‐ requesting of the House... and not only requesting that, but there are stand. We've been in this pandemic since March. People are orga‐ other discussions taking place around extending the ability of com‐ nizing Zoom meetings to bring together their Little League baseball mittees to meet virtually. By taking that out, I think it's more re‐ teams and other volunteer organizations, and they figure it out. spectful of these other discussions. We can come back to it next Somehow we haven't been able to figure out how to hold a meeting week under committee business. longer than two hours. I find that hard to believe— 40 FINA-05 November 5, 2020

● (35320) present and making sure that she is responding to questions that are The Chair: The problem, Pierre, is there's no sense in you and I brought forward by all members of the House. getting into an argument about it because this is beyond us. This is what the whips and House leaders of all the parties have agreed to. Thank you. It relates to Parliament Hill and the capacity to handle not just our committee but all the committees, and the capacity for interpreta‐ The Chair: Are you okay with that bit of a change, Peter? What tion for all. it would do is get us started. I think we could have a subcommittee meeting. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Yes. What day's today, Thursday? You may have to fly or something The Chair: There's nothing I, or we as a committee, can do. It's tomorrow, but could we have a subcommittee meeting tomorrow or beyond our ability. It's with all the parties in the House of Com‐ Monday? The difficulty on that one is we have to be able to get mons. time as well. Could we have a subcommittee meeting—I'll put it Hon. Pierre Poilievre: They're talking about putting a man or this way—at the earliest opportunity, as soon as it can be arranged? woman on Mars. Hopefully, it would be tomorrow, but at the latest, Monday. Then we can do the rest of the planning. The motion that's on the floor The Chair: You talk to your House leader about that. with that kind of suggestion would allow the discussion on all of Hon. Pierre Poilievre: We can't hold a three-hour Zoom meet‐ those other options, and still bring forward everything from the pre‐ ing. vious Parliament, so we have that available in our inbox on our The Chair: You'll have to talk to your House leader and get Mr. iPads, or on our system that we use. O'Toole or somebody on that one. Would that do the trick and not compromise what your problem Ms. Dzerowicz. was? Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: I think for next Thursday, perhaps we Mr. Peter Julian: I agree with everything, except the point of re‐ should just go with what was proposed, as we have it. I think that questing of the House, I— the governor's been very patient with us. I think we've cancelled a couple of times, and perhaps we could already schedule the gover‐ Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: I suggested taking it out. nor for next Thursday. The Chair: She suggested taking it out. Is it possible, Mr. Chair, that the subcommittee, which usually deals with the agenda, set the agenda for whatever the pre-budget Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: I suggested “that the committee table its consultations...whether we go with option one, option two, the al‐ report on Pre-budget consultations no later”, so we take out the ternative option...? Today I just want to provide a framework that words “request permission from the house”, so it moves “the com‐ would allow us to get going. It isn't just about the alternatives; it's mittee table its report on Pre-Budget consultations no later than the also about the release of the documents so that everyone can start week of February 1”. It leaves both your option and my option looking at them and working on them as well. open. I don't know, and maybe, Mr. Chair, you might be able to help ● (35325) out on this. To Mr. Julian's point, I wonder if we could say, just to keep everything open, because instead of the committee requesting Mr. Peter Julian: Okay, why don't we just talk about that next permission from the House to table this report on pre-budget con‐ week? sultations, we could just put “the committee table its report on Pre- Budget consultations no later than the week of February 1”. That The Chair: We're not requesting— means we don't have to ask anybody; it basically says that would be the latest. It allows for the most flexible, timely motion on our side; Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: If we vote on this today, we release the it allows for the alternative of Mr. Julian's on the other side; it al‐ evidence and documentation received by the committee. We al‐ lows for the release of the evidence and the documentation in terms ready put on notice the Deputy Prime Minister and departmental of‐ of pre-budget documentation, as well as the COVID-19 consulta‐ ficials that we want them to start coming; we've said that we want tions and best ideas to come forward. It allows the subcommittee to the subcommittee to figure out the dates on that; and then in the re‐ actually meet; it allows us to actually move forward and invite the lease of that evidence and documentation, we could all get access to governor for next Thursday, and it allows for a subcommittee meet‐ those documents. For all of those reasons, that's the reason it would ing to battle it out as to when the Deputy Prime Minister comes in be good for us to vote on this today. and speaks to this committee, and for how long. I don't mind meet‐ ing for seven hours on pre-budget consultations and hearing from Mr. Peter Julian: I agree. All I'm saying is let's just strike that our Deputy Prime Minister. reference to February 1, and have the steering committee look at it and come back to committee. That's all I'm asking. Everything else, I do want to note, though, that she was already before the com‐ I agree with, so let's— mittee of the whole for four hours, I believe, last week, so I know that she's been front and centre and trying to be accountable and Hon. Pierre Poilievre: I agree with Peter on this one. November 5, 2020 FINA-05 41

Mr. Peter Julian: Yes, so let's just strike the reference to Febru‐ issue. I would normally think three hours is excessive. I haven't ary 1, and everything else is fine. We move ahead. I agree with Mr. seen that in my time as an MP, but I don't think we need to debate Poilievre on the three hours, I think that's probably a discussion the merits of that here. I think this seems like the precise thing that we'll have at the steering committee too, but let's.... You've certain‐ the subcommittee exists for—to sort out this plus the technical de‐ ly convinced me of everything, we have a few minutes left, just tail that you mentioned around meeting slots and time availability strike February 1, and I guarantee that I'll be able to get a reference given the number of committees. Can we do the same thing on this in a timely manner and come back and we can have that discussion time commitment for the minister's appearance that we did with the around the deadlines at the steering committee, and then back here timeline for our report—just deal with it at subcommittee rather at the committee. than sort it out here? The Chair: That would get us started. The Chair: I think that's a fair suggestion. Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: I'm okay with that. That would be a The motion is on the floor. friendly amendment if we eliminated paragraph (g). Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: Does everybody have the updated mo‐ Madam Clerk, I haven't provided the updated one with the tion? I deleted paragraph (g). COVID-19 consultations. Actually, what I could do—because it takes me two seconds to do this—is just delete (g) and send you the I sent it to you, Madam Clerk. It's version six. updated version. The Chair: We understand that the time frame is— The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre. Ms. Julie Dzerowicz: I moved from version two to six today. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: The only objection I have here is that The Chair: We'll go to the vote on the motion. we're calling for the Deputy Prime Minister and departmental offi‐ cials to be here. I understand we're doing that in this motion. If we Madam Clerk, could you do the go-round? pass this, I would like to specify that it is our intention to have her (Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of here for three hours so we don't have one of these situations in Proceedings]) which they come back and say, “Sure, we'd be happy to come in for an hour”, and then, as old used to do, blow 15 min‐ The Chair: Just for members' information, we will try to get a utes on their opener and then do a little bob and weave and be out subcommittee meeting as quickly as possible given the conditions the door without having addressed any of the real issues. We need under which we operate in this place at the moment. the minister for three hours. With that, thank you all— The Chair: Just to make sure the record's clear, Mr Poilievre, Bill Morneau never went 15 minutes at committee. We always held ● (35330) him to 10. He might have gone to 11 at one time, but— Mr. Sean Fraser: Mr. Chair. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: It felt like it was longer. The Chair: Yes. The Chair: —I don't think he bobbed and weaved. Let's be fair. Mr. Sean Fraser: Just before we break, look, I'm not on the sub‐ Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Each minute felt like two. committee, but I know that it's difficult to secure time for ordinary meetings. I don't know if the subcommittee is bound to meet during The Chair: He always, I felt, answered your questions very di‐ official time slots, but if this helps speed things up, just in the inter‐ rectly. ests of getting it sorted out, you might want to consider whether a Mr. Sean Fraser: Mr. Chair. Zoom meeting could be arranged that's not an official House of The Chair: Yes, Mr. Fraser. Commons meeting. I don't know what our rules provide for, but I thought I'd toss that out as a suggestion so we don't delay the work Hon. Pierre Poilievre: If we just make it clear that it's three further. hours, then we can all agree to this motion with the adjustments that Mr. Julian's made, and in the spirit of collegiality that has char‐ The Chair: We appreciate that. acterized this entire engagement, we can move on, arms locked. The big thing is that the chair is not bilingual, and we do have to The Chair: I think I'm going to go to Mr. Fraser first, and then proceed bilingually. we'll come back to the motion. That was the point, I think, you were going to make, Gabriel. Mr. Fraser. Thank you all very much. Mr. Sean Fraser: It strikes me that this is something that the subcommittee can probably sort out. I know you raised a technical With that, the meeting is adjourned.

Published under the authority of the Speaker of Publié en conformité de l’autorité the House of Commons du Président de la Chambre des communes SPEAKER’S PERMISSION PERMISSION DU PRÉSIDENT

The proceedings of the House of Commons and its commit‐ Les délibérations de la Chambre des communes et de ses tees are hereby made available to provide greater public ac‐ comités sont mises à la disposition du public pour mieux le cess. The parliamentary privilege of the House of Commons renseigner. La Chambre conserve néanmoins son privilège to control the publication and broadcast of the proceedings of parlementaire de contrôler la publication et la diffusion des the House of Commons and its committees is nonetheless re‐ délibérations et elle possède tous les droits d’auteur sur served. All copyrights therein are also reserved. celles-ci. Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons Il est permis de reproduire les délibérations de la Chambre and its committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, et de ses comités, en tout ou en partie, sur n’importe quel sup‐ is hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accu‐ port, pourvu que la reproduction soit exacte et qu’elle ne soit rate and is not presented as official. This permission does not pas présentée comme version officielle. Il n’est toutefois pas extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial permis de reproduire, de distribuer ou d’utiliser les délibéra‐ purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this tions à des fins commerciales visant la réalisation d'un profit permission or without authorization may be treated as copy‐ financier. Toute reproduction ou utilisation non permise ou right infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. Au‐ non formellement autorisée peut être considérée comme une thorization may be obtained on written application to the Of‐ violation du droit d’auteur aux termes de la Loi sur le droit fice of the Speaker of the House of Commons. d’auteur. Une autorisation formelle peut être obtenue sur présentation d’une demande écrite au Bureau du Président de la Chambre des communes. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not La reproduction conforme à la présente permission ne con‐ constitute publication under the authority of the House of stitue pas une publication sous l’autorité de la Chambre. Le Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the proceed‐ privilège absolu qui s’applique aux délibérations de la Cham‐ ings of the House of Commons does not extend to these per‐ bre ne s’étend pas aux reproductions permises. Lorsqu’une mitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes briefs reproduction comprend des mémoires présentés à un comité to a committee of the House of Commons, authorization for de la Chambre, il peut être nécessaire d’obtenir de leurs au‐ reproduction may be required from the authors in accor‐ teurs l’autorisation de les reproduire, conformément à la Loi dance with the Copyright Act. sur le droit d’auteur. Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the La présente permission ne porte pas atteinte aux privilèges, privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of pouvoirs, immunités et droits de la Chambre et de ses Commons and its committees. For greater certainty, this per‐ comités. Il est entendu que cette permission ne touche pas mission does not affect the prohibition against impeaching or l’interdiction de contester ou de mettre en cause les délibéra‐ questioning the proceedings of the House of Commons in tions de la Chambre devant les tribunaux ou autrement. La courts or otherwise. The House of Commons retains the right Chambre conserve le droit et le privilège de déclarer l’utilisa‐ and privilege to find users in contempt of Parliament if a re‐ teur coupable d’outrage au Parlement lorsque la reproduc‐ production or use is not in accordance with this permission. tion ou l’utilisation n’est pas conforme à la présente permis‐ sion.

Also available on the House of Commons website at the Aussi disponible sur le site Web de la Chambre des following address: https://www.ourcommons.ca communes à l’adresse suivante : https://www.noscommunes.ca